Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

British Steel

Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of the Scottish steel industry; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I would expect to meet the chairman of British Steel whenever appropriate. I have asked the Scottish Development Agency to carry out an analysis of the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland.

Dr. Reid: If the Secretary of State does not think that this is an appropriate time, he never will. When he meets the chairman of British Steel, will he inform him that the letter that he sent to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not only an insult, but the biggest cover-up since Watergate? Did the right hon. learned Gentleman notice that it contained not only no guarantee for Ravenscraig beyond 1994, but no guarantee for the Clydesdale and Imperial works beyond the end of this week?
Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that Scottish Office resources and the resources of the Department of Trade and Industry will be fully at the disposal of the SDA, and that its study will cover all three plants and be based not only on present market demand, but on the potential market demand for Scottish steel plant if the necessary investment that should have been made was made now?

Mr. Rifkind: The correspondence that I have had with Sir Robert Scholey was about Ravenscraig, so it is not surprising that there was no reference to Clydesdale or to other plants. I can confirm that the study that I have asked the SDA to carry out is not limited to any one company or plant; it is on the future prospects for the steel industry in Scotland as a whole.

Sir Hector Monro: May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his staunch efforts on behalf of British Steel? Does he accept that the letter from the chairman of British Steel is quite unacceptable and that we expect much

better from the chairman and directors of British Steel in terms of looking after Scotland, the community and the work force? I hope that he will pursue the chairman for as long as necessary to obtain satisfactory answers.

Mr. Rifkind: I note my hon. Friend's remarks. We have told Sir Robert Scholey that we hope that he will reconsider his unwillingness to date to meet the representatives of the work force at Ravenscraig. It appears that it would be of mutual benefit not only for them to hear his point of view, but for Sir Robert to hear what they have to say about the plant in which they work.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State accept Sir Gordon Borrie's comment that he had hoped that the exchanges between the Government and the chairman of British Steel would have yielded information on whether a reference of that decision to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was justified? As Sir Robert Scholey, not surprisingly, has not given that information, will the Secretary of State make it clear to British Steel that if it is not prepared to operate the plant in Scotland, the Government will invoke the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's powers to ensure that genuine competition operates, that Britain's trade interests are brought into effect and that, if necessary, the assets of British Steel in Scotland will be offered to somebody who is prepared to invest in the monopoly?

Mr. Rifkind: I am not certain that the hon. Gentleman has thought out the implications of what he said. Taken literally, it would imply that the Liberal Democrat party wishes to denationlise the assets of British Steel. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that, as the Government do not own those assets—it is not Labour party policy to reacquire them—short of reacquisition there is no way in which a company can be obliged to dispose of its facilities.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Competition law.

Mr. Rifkind: On competition law, the hon. Gentleman must accept that it is for the Director General of Fair Trading to make a recommendation to Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That is the correct procedure of which, I think, the hon. Gentleman is well aware.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his powerful fight for Scottish steel. Has he clarified whether, in the event of the Ravenscraig closure, British Steel would automatically offer the plant for sale at a negotiated price, or whether the chairman of British Steel would reserve the right not to sell the plant if he considered that a sale would be contrary to the commercial interests of British Steel?

Mr. Rifkind: The position of British Steel is as described in its prospectus, in which British Steel said that, in the event of there being no future requirements for its steel-making assets in Scotland, it would be prepared to make them available to an alternative private sector purchaser. Sir Robert said in his letter to me that British Steel intends to continue to honour that commitment.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State agree that British Steel's assumptions of the likely market demand for steel are far too pessimistic, given the expected increased demand in Europe and the need to roll back the formidable import penetration in our domestic market? There is great confusion about exactly what the Secretary


of State is doing to test the assumptions and the rather doubtful theories that are included in Sir Robert Scholey's letters. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us specifically what steps he is taking? Does he remember that one of the things that might have been thought simple and that he urged on Sir Robert Scholey—the need for Sir Robert to meet the work force and explain the situation—is specifically repudiated in a letter on the basis that it undermines local management? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to take such a brush-off?

Mr. Rifkind: I have already made it clear to Sir Robert that I feel that it is unfortunate that he is not prepared to meet his work force, and I have urged him to reconsider. In considering the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland, the SDA will wish to take account of any information on likely market trends that is available to it. We would expect that information to be taken into account when the SDA's analysis is prepared and presented.

Hospitals

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the hospitals currently under consideration for closure by Scottish health boards.

Mr. Rifkind: There are no closure submissions before Ministers at the moment, but I am aware that several boards are proposing rationalisation of their services.

Mr. Griffiths: Does not that answer show how out of touch the Secretary of State is with Scottish health boards? He does not know that several hospitals are earmarked for panic closure in the Lothian region, part of which he represents. The health board has earmarked for closure Longmore hospital in my constituency. Will he ensure that the board gives him sufficient evidence—which I understand is not available—to show that the breast cancer unit and geriatric facilities can be transferred to another unit, thereby preserving the quality of service? The experts tell me, as they told the Minister of State when he visited the hospital, that that is impossible.

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman had done the House the courtesy of listening to my reply, he would have heard me say that there are no closure submissions before Ministers at the moment. I am as aware as the hon. Gentleman of the proposals before Lothian health board. It will be for the health board, once it has considered the responses to its proposals, to decide whether to make closure recommendations to the Scottish Office.
I am well aware of the extremely valuable work of the breast cancer unit at Longmore hospital. Much of the discussion is about whether that valuable work could continue if the breast cancer unit transferred to an alternative location. Obviously, we would expect the health board to consider that issue carefully before making any recommendations.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say anything about Mearnskirk hospital in my constituency where Greater Glasgow health board is proposing, perfectly sensibly, the withdrawal of acute beds? My right hon. and learned Friend will soon receive a submission from Eastwood district council. Will he assure us that it will be fully considered, along with the other proposals being made by Greater Glasgow health

board, to ensure that this important site is retained, at least in part, within the health service and is developed in accordance with the wishes and needs of the people of Eastwood?

Mr. Rifkind: I am aware of such proposals. I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that they will be carefully considered to ascertain whether the objectives of my hon. Friend and Eastwood district council can be accommodated by the health service.

Mr. Hood: The Secretary of State will be aware of the size of Clydesdale constituency—almost 800 sq m with a population of 100,000. I wrote to him last week informing him of Lanarkshire health board's decision to build a new hospital at Wishaw and to upgrade its hospital at Hairmyres. It is threatening to remove acute medical services in the Clydesdale constituency. Will the Secretary of State assure the House and my constituents that he will not agree to a diminution in acute medical provision in Clydesdale?

Mr. Rifkind: I note carefully what the hon. Gentleman said. The health board has not put any proposals to the Scottish Home and Health Department, but, if and when any recommendations are put, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall take into account his points and those made by others who have commented on the proposals.

Mr. Galbraith: Does the Secretary of State agree that the reason for many of the proposed closures is the chronic underfunding of the health service in Scotland? In the past six years, has not the Scottish Office underfunded pay awards to the health boards, excluding Glasgow, by £150 million? In Lothian alone, underfunding of pay awards amounts to £20 million—almost the exact amount that Lothian will have to make in cuts. Does not that show that Lothian's problems are due not to mismanagement but to underfunding and that, therefore, the Secretary of State will be responsible for any cuts or closures in Lothian.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. In the current year, the Government have made available an extra £158 million, or 8.3 per cent., over the previous provision to meet priorities, including out-of-line pay and price increases. The allowances made for pay have been exactly the same for Lothian as for other health boards in Scotland. The fact that Lothian is facing a cash crisis does not arise from provision for pay, which is equal for all health boards in Scotland.

Hospice, Linlithgow

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received in relation to the future of elderly and day-care patients at the 800-year-old hospice at Linlithgow.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): No proposals have been received concerning St. Michael's hospital, Linlithgow.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the dismay of the 13,500 people who signed the petition, would not it be wise at least for the Scottish Office to discover the legal and historic advice about church land being disposed of when it was given, in this case in 1138, for the maintenance of the ministry, the fabric of the church and the care of the poor? In order to


avoid a cause celebre in the Court of Session, should not Scottish Office lawyers consult scholars on the legal position before the idea of disposal proceeds further? Should not the idea be nipped in the bud?

Mr. Forsyth: I understand that Lothian health board's examination of the matter is at an early stage, but I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that his points will be drawn to the attention of the board. I shall ask it carefully to examine the legal position on the feu disposition in respect of that hospital. I am grateful to him for drawing it to our attention.

Health Service, Tayside

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to visit Tayside to discuss the health service.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so at the present time.

Mr. Ross: If the Minister decides to visit Tayside, instead of using his ministerial car will he perhaps get on his mountain bike, with which he featured in the newspapers on Sunday? While he is taking his time over the Ochil hills to Tayside, will he consider the £1.8 million underfunding of pay awards in Tayside which blows the myth that privatisation will be good for the health service? Have not any savings from privatisation been more than offset by the underfunding of pay awards?

Mr. Forsyth: It is a fact that what the hon. Gentleman calls privatisation—which is competitive tendering—has made £80 million available for patient care in the health service. It is also a fact that the Labour party has committed itself to abolishing competitive tendering, in the unlikely event of its taking office. We have had no explanation of where the extra £80 million would come from. The health service has never been better funded. Funding has increased by more than one third in real terms, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the service development that has taken place in Tayside.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend meets Tayside health board will he draw its attention to the fact that it is probably the finest health board offering the best value services anywhere in the country? Nevertheless, there are causes for concern. For instance, Stracathro hospital is under threat. Moreover, it is to be hoped that the self-governing hospital proposals in Forfar which are very welcome will now be seen to be producing results.

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the exciting proposals for self-governing status which have come from the doctors in Forfar, and to what has been achieved in Tayside. In common with other health boards, those in Scotland are now treating far more patients and making significant inroads into reducing waiting lists and waiting times.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the Minister understand the widespread anger about, and opposition to, Tayside health board's rundown, closure and withdrawal of hospital services throughout Angus? How can the Minister justify the closure of specialist services at Arbroath infirmary, and the possible closure or rundown of maternity services in Arbroath, Brechin, Forfar and Montrose and of orthopaedic, general and emergency services at

Stracathro, as well as the closure of perfectly viable laundry services at Sunnyside hospital? Is that what the Tories mean when they say that the NHS is safe in their hands?

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman arranges to come and see me to discuss these matters—which he has not done—I shall explain the background to them. The hon. Gentleman asked me to justify the changes. The reason is perfectly simple: the medical advice that we are receiving in respect of maternity services suggests that they should be provided where the full range of services provided by a district general hospital are available. A balance has to be struck between meeting the needs of rural areas and meeting the requirements of patient safety. The hon. Gentleman will have to take a more sophisticated approach to these matters if he wishes to continue to represent the interests of his constituents.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to the future of Stracathro hospital, which serves part of my constituency and where many of my constituents are members of staff? Will he acknowledge that many of us would find it intolerable if the services of that hospital were so whittled away that there was no general hospital between Aberdeen and Dundee?

Mr. Forsyth: The reforms that we propose for the health service will mean that hospitals will be able to attract funds according to the patients whom they treat and the services that they provide. To hospitals such as Stracathro—which I know well because it is in the area where I was brought up—the White Paper proposals and particularly the option of self-governing status offer new opportunities.

Housing

Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the level of central Government grants in support of housing expenditure in Ross and Cromarty district in the last three years for which figures are available.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): In the three years to 31 March 1990, Ross and Cromarty district council received housing support grant in excess of £11.2 million, and croft housing grants of more than £294,000 were approved.

Mr. Kennedy: Is the Minister aware that last year the district council carried out a major housing survey of its needs and projected expenditure and that it is estimated that a rolling programme of £60 million will be needed next year for new build, to improve council stock and to bring private sector housing up from below tolerable standard to reasonable standard? Given the number of representations that both the district council and I are receiving from many communities in Ross and Cromarty—and from many housing schemes in individual communities—will not the Minister have to look again at his spending allocations for the district authority? There is no way that it will meet over the next five years the obvious needs that have been identified by the council.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I welcomed the opportunity to meet the hon. Gentleman's district council


last summer and I am aware of the problems that he mentioned. The amount of housing below tolerable standard has been reduced by more than half over the past 10 years, but I am aware of the extent of such housing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. A rural housing study is being carried out in depth, almost from Muckle Flugga to Mull of Kintyre, and we hope to come forward with a concerted strategy in Scotland by September.
Part of the answer may lie in the extent to which the private sector will come in to support local authorities and Scottish Homes in partnership projects.

Mr. Speaker: Dr. Godman.

Dr. Godman: Question 14, Sir. Sorry—I mean No. 6.

Inverclyde Enterprise Zone

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the operation of the Inverclyde enterprise zone.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): The Inverclyde enterprise zone was established in 1989 and has a 10-year life span. It is, therefore, much too soon to assess its impact on the local economy.
However, in addition to the 870 jobs already created or planned, I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the American electronics company Sorensen Ltd. yesterday announced the takeover and expansion of Domain Power Ltd. which is expected to create a further 400 new jobs in Inverclyde.

Dr. Godman: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I think that I was expressing hope when I referred to question 14.
The enterprise zone suffers from large areas of dereliction. Where those areas surround listed buildings, there is a major problem of persuading investors to come into the zone. I refer to the engine works in Arthur street in Greenock and the Gourock ropeworks in Port Glasgow. I wish that the Minister would show a smidgen of the concern about and commitment to the community that were shown by his grandfather, who built the engine works in Arthur street. With regard to the Gourock ropeworks, is the Minister aware that the people of Port Glasgow deserve a quick solution to the problems of dereliction surrounding that fine listed building? Let us have some action on that building and the area of dereliction surrounding it.

Mr. Lang: It is more likely to have been my great-grandfather. The buildings to which the hon. Gentleman referred are being given close attention, but it is primarily a matter for their owners. The Inverclyde enterprise zone has some geographical difficulties in that it is split among 11 sites covering 274 acres. However, the SDA has already spent or committed £14.3 million towards clearance of dereliction and factory construction. That is a reflection of the way in which it is approaching the matter. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by more than in any other constituency in Scotland, bar one, over the past three years. That is a reflection of the success of the Government's policies in the Inverclyde area.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend accept that no other enterprise zone has greater prospects, contains finer buildings or a finer work force, is on the

Clyde or has such magnificent prospects? My hon. Friend should encourage Scottish Enterprise to promote that enterprise zone with vigour because no place could be more vigorously successful than that part of Scotland.

Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The enterprise zones in different parts of Scotland are one aspect of the Government's policies to promote the development of enterprise and the regeneration of the economy. The overall success of those policies is revealed by the fact that the fall in unemployment over the past three years has been the biggest single fall for the past 40 years. The dramatic improvement in employment is a reflection of the success of our policies.

Mr. Graham: Is the Minister aware that the recent decision to allow the Braehead development, which is a monstrous plan, to go ahead will do irreparable damage to the Inverclyde enterprise zone and to nearly every industrial development in Renfrewshire? Will the Minister make a statement about that? I have never seen such a stupid planning decision, particularly when we consider that Inverclyde district council, Renfrew district council and Strathclyde council are totally opposed to the abominable Braehead plan.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will know that that decision was given the closest and most careful consideration. However, there are a number of encouraging initiatives in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, including those at Ferguslie park and Renfrew and the developments at Linwood. Unemployment has fallen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency by more than 2,200 in the past three and a half years.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mention has been made of question No. 14, which leads me to the conclusion that hon. Members would like to get on to that question. There is interest also in question No. 11, so we should now move on rather more rapidly.

Floods, Tay Valley

Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications he has received for grants following the floods in the Tay valley; and how many have been for funds to restore the environmental damage caused by the floods.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Thirty-two applications have been received from farmers in Tayside for the repair of elevated floodbanks at the enhanced rates of grant announced on 28 February 1990. A further five applications have been received for arterial drainage and ditching operations at ordinary rates.
With regard to environmental damage, three farmers within the Breadalbane environmentally sensitive area have notified damage to grant-aided trees and fences.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the worst break in the Tay was at Braecock farm and that a temporary repair was carried out there? Downstream, farmers and the village of Capath will be at risk unless the colossal damage that was done at Braecock is properly, fully and adequately repaired. What proposals


does my hon. Friend have and what hope can he give people downstream of Braecock that the work will be carried out properly?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to reassure my hon. Friend that the three downstream owners who are to carry out repairs to flood banks will also qualify for enhanced grants. The Scottish Office is ready to pay 60 per cent. of grant, and approval of the repair proposals will be given immediately when the owners are ready to accept the contractor's tender.

Mr. McAllion: Is the Minister aware that Labour-controlled Tayside regional council convened a meeting last month with representatives of local authorities and farming, environmental and other bodies? That meeting called on the Scottish Office to pay £25,000 for a feasibility study to solve the flood damage problem. Will the Minister take this opportunity to say that he will respond positively to that call and pay the £25,000?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is correct that a meeting took place on 21 June. A steering group was formed to appoint an independent consultant and oversee the hydrology study. We have offered to fund it up to a quarter, to a maximum of £10,000, which we consider generous, taking all the circumstances into account.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications of the Government's review of the poll tax for local authorities in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: The House will be informed when the review has been completed.

Mr. Douglas: When the Secretary of State meets local authorities in Edinburgh on Friday, will he inform them at least that there will be no capping of local authorities in Scotland? How will he react to their fears, published in the press today, that the poll tax is likely to increase by 25 per cent. in Scotland in the oncoming year? [Interruption.] If Conservative Members wish to intervene, I am happy for them to do so. How will the Secretary of State react to the farcical protests by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who say that they want to use the Act of Union, which the Government have abrogated by imposing unfair taxes on Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: I have already said that in the current financial year it is not necessary to take selective action. Indeed, evidence suggests that Scottish local authorities have had lower levels of expenditure than local authorities south of the border, no doubt because accountability is beginning to apply.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question and the various predictions by local authorities about possible levels of community charge next year, I have noted that one of the points that they have raised is that a number of people are seeking to evade their legal responsibilities and refusing to pay their taxes. The hon. Gentleman might help his constituents by paying his lawful taxes so that law-abiding members of the public do not suffer.

Mr. Jack: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the generosity of support for Scottish local authorities by taxpayers thoughout the United Kingdom. What steps is he taking to ensure that the revenue support grant that those authorities receive is spent as efficiently as possible?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is corrrect that it is in the public interest to ensure that local authorities are properly accountable to their electorates for the way in which they use available resources. One of the great advantages of the community charge as compared with the old rating system is that it ensures far greater accountability, because all adults who benefit from local services now contribute towards their cost.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Secretary of State aware that the only sensible outcome, which is desired by the vast majority of Scottish people, is the total abolition of the poll tax? As he may find that slightly difficult, will he in the meanwhile demand from the review committee the abolition of the 20 per cent. minimum payment rule, backdated to 1 April 1989, an improvement in the rebate system, again backdated to 1 April 1989, and a vast improvement in revenue support grant next year to ensure that the odious burden of warrant sales is not imposed on thousands of our fellow Scots and that Scottish local authorities will not be forced to increase the poll tax by a massive amount and to cut services and jobs next year?

Mr. Rifkind: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. The House and the public will be even more interested to know whether the Labour party is continuing to insist on imposing a roof tax in Scotland, which has been rejected not only by the Leader of the Opposition for England and Wales, but by the vast majority of people in Scotland. We understand the Labour party's embarrassement and sensitivity on that issue, but Opposition Members must realise that it will not go away.

Scottish Assembly

Mr. Gow: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the setting up of an assembly in Edinburgh with legislative powers.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In the past six months, five letters in support of an assembly have been received.

Mr. Gow: If my noble Friend believes, as I do, that an assembly in Edinburgh would weaken and injure the Union, why are Government supporting an assembly in Belfast?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There is no contradiction in the Government's approach. It reflects the different circumstances in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. A Scottish assembly would be a taxation nightmare in Scotland and as the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has estimated, it will lead to an extra 25 p in the pound income tax for the Scots.

Mr. Home Robertson: Does the Minister accept that if we had an Administration subject to democratic accountability in Scotland, matters such as the threatened closure of 640 hospital beds in Lothian region would receive at least as much attention as the solicitors'


monopoly is currently receiving? Does he further accept that such exposure to democratic accountability would be an invigorating experience, not just for Ministers, but for Scottish Office civil servants?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I think that the hon. Gentleman can represent his constituents perfectly well in the House of Commons—[HON. MEMBERS: "And you."] Indeed, I am one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The hon. Gentleman can represent his constituents in the House on health matters.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about devolution, I believe that
We will get guaranteed disharmony, disunity, conflict and competition throughout the whole of Britain. The dominant issue of politics in Britain will be the jealousies of region against region, nation against nation, argument against argument. That will be very bad news for Britain".
Those are not my words—they are the words of the Leader of the Opposition a few years ago, and they are as valid today as they were when he uttered them.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that all Scottish taxpayers should be made aware that a Labour-inspired Scottish assembly would increase taxation beyond belief, as was confirmed by the Leader of the Opposition who said that only one in 15 taxpayers would face an increase—that is, the Scots?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. If Scotland were funded at the average United Kingdom per capita level, Scotland would have been £2.7 billion worse off in 1989–90. To fund the balance in Scotland and to maintain expenditure in Scotland at its current level would require an additional 25p in the pound.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful to have a bit less heat and a bit more light? Does he further agree that the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill is an excellent example of the need for a Scottish Assembly because treatment of it has been superficial and inadequate? When the Scottish Constitutional Convention concludes, will the Minister undertake to meet it to try to work out a reasonable and sensible answer to all this?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is no. The Scottish Constitutional Convention is unrepresentative of Scotland—[Interruption.] The Scottish National party is not taking part. The hon. Gentleman must await my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's statement on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.

Scottish Office Expenditure

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received recently about Scottish Office expenditure.

Mr. Rifkind: I receive regular representations on all aspects of Scottish Office business, including expenditure.

Mr. Bennett: What representations has my right hon. and learned Friend received from the Opposition about their plans to spend up to £50 billion extra across the United Kingdom, to have a Scottish assembly with tax-raising powers, which would cost Scottish taxpayers

something like 25p in the pound, and a roof tax? Has he received any explanation from the Labour party in Scotland about how it proposes to pay for that?

Mr. Rifkind: One of the most worrying aspects of the Opposition's proposals is that not only do they propose substantial increases—

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is about the Minister's answer—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have not heard it yet.

Mr. Bruce: The Minister is not entitled to answer for the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear his answer. We have not heard it yet.

Mr. Rifkind: One of the most worrying aspects about any proposals for new taxation is that they would impose an even greater burden of taxation on Scotland than on the rest of the United Kingdom. That would clearly be the consequence of the Labour party's proposals.

Sir David Steel: Will the Secretary of State consider adding one new item of Scottish Office expenditure in the light of yesterday's announcement by the Department of Transport of a motorway link up the A1 as far as Newcastle? Does he recognise that the press statement saying that it would help Scotland added insult to injury? Nothing is more damaging to Scotland than creating the same impression on the east coast of England as exists on the west coast—that the motorway network stops at the border. Will the Secretary of State urgently review his road programme?

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that not only are we proposing significant improvements to the A1 in Scotland, but we are making more dramatic and radical progress in transforming the A74 into a motorway on the west coast of Scotland than any previous Government ever contemplated. We have begun construction work on the total reconstruction of the A74 to full motorway status, making quicker progress than has ever been known in the roads programme of any Transport Department in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wilson: In spite of that answer, does the Minister accept that the absence of Scottish Office expenditure and of any visible strategy on fast, modern communications between Scotland and the south has become a major liability for the Scottish economy? In addition to the lack of decision on the A1, how on earth can he defend the total absence of a Scottish Office strategy in the past three years to ensure fast, direct links between Scotland and the channel tunnel? Will not that be seen with hindsight as one of the great omissions by the Scottish Office in the past three years, with tremendous long-term implications for the Scottish economy?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman knows what he is talking about. For the first time, we have plans to link the motorway network of central Scotland with the motorway network in the south. In addition, we have the electrification of the east coast railway line between central Scotland and London. We have also had a more remarkable improvement in civil aviation between


central Scotland and London. We have also had a more remarkable improvement in civil aviation between central Scotland and south than at any time in our history.

British Steel

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to assess the arguments advanced by British Steel for the closure of the Ravenscraig strip mill, as outlined in the recent letter to him from the chairman of British Steel.

Mr. Lang: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given a few moments ago by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid).

Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister agree that it is immoral for a man who has just received a 79 per cent. pay rise to show such a lack of concern at the social impact of his decisions? Sir Robert Scholey has made it clear that to protect his private monopoly, British Steel will not sell the strip mill to a competitor. Will the Minister urge his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to insist that that statement be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and use the threat of resignation to make sure that that happens?

Mr. Lang: Sir Robert Scholey has a responsibility to his company and to the steel industry, not only in Scotland. In regard to the other points in the hon. Gentleman's question, Sir Robert pointed out in his letter to my right hon. and learned Friend that there are no fewer than 15 major competitors to British Steel within Europe alone. Competition is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading.

Mr. Sillars: May I refer the Minister to what the Secretary of State said about the analysis that he has instructed the Scottish Development Agency to carry out? Is he aware that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave the impression that clear and precise directions were given to the Scottish Development Agency? But I have a letter from Mr. Scott, the chief executive, who says that
the precise terms of reference of the remit for the study have yet to be settled.
Exactly what will the Scottish Office involvement be in setting the final terms of reference? Will the Minister give an assurance that the terms of reference will include the feasibility of an independent Scottish steel industry and that the preparation of a business plan to attract investment for that objective will not be ruled out?

Mr. Lang: The terms of reference for the SDA were deliberately made extremely broad. They included the analysis of prospects for the steel industry, the identification of opportunities for it and the ability to assist the Government in the discharge of our responsibilities in relation to any possible contraction of the sector. The kind of detail to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a matter for the SDA to resolve when it decides how to embark on its study.

Mrs. Fyfe: Has the Secretary of State made a study of the impact on the local economy if Ravenscraig were to close, and if not, why not?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady will know that there are a number of initiatives in the Lanarkshire area, and have

been for a number of years—in particular, the Monklands initiative, which is a major initiative. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State invited consideration of the possible impact of the hot strip mill closure on the area. Any other initiative that may be necessary will arise as a result of the SDA report or other developments, and will be reacted to at the appropriate time.

Mr Marlow: May I put it to my hon. Friend arid to his right hon. and learned Friend that they are giving their English colleagues a great deal of concern? We can understand the interest in what happens in Scotland, but we are talking about part of the British steel industry. My hon. Friends are concerned with Scotland, but, as British Ministers in a British Government, will they take account not only of Scottish interests—which, from an English point of view, they seem to be fighting for far too strongly—but of British interests as well?

Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I, and our other colleagues, are Ministers in a territorial Department. It would be surprising if we did not direct our attention primarily to the interests of that territory.

Cervical Cancer

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for cervical cancer (a) patients and (b) deaths in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The latest figures show 443 patients suffering from cervical cancer and, regrettably, 191 deaths.

Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that that, and the Government's lack of interest, is appalling? Recently, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) made an appeal regarding the 2,000 needless cervical cancer deaths nationally. The Government have been repeatedly asked by family practitioner committees and cytologists to spend an extra £20 million. Had they done so, we might have saved the 2,000 people who have died from this invasive carcinoma. Why do the Government have such a shocking and appalling record, and when will they spend the £20 million that we need to achieve 90 per cent. protection?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the figures for loss of life through cervical cancer are disturbing. I also agree that many of these deaths are preventable. In 90 per cent. of the cases where cervical cancer has been diagnosed, there has been no screening. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that the Government have put in place a call and recall system for cervical screening, the aim of which is to ensure that all women between the ages of 20 and 60 are screened before 1993, on the basis of regular screening at least once every five years. In some health boards, screening will take place every three years. A screening programme is in hand and it is extremely important that women in Scotland respond to invitations to take part. In addition, the new GP contract gives incentives to doctors to provide screening services for all their patients. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

Higher Education

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about trends in the numbers in higher education since 1979.

Mr. Lang: I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the number of full-time students attending higher education in Scotland rose by almost 25 per cent. between 1979 and 1989, to nearly 85,000. 1 hope that this excellent trend will continue.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that those statistics underline the Government's commitment to the future of higher education in Scotland, and does he join me in welcoming the decision by Stirling university to double its intake in the near future?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is an authority on Scottish universities, having attended St. Andrews and graduated there, and having been a lecturer at Aberdeen and Glasgow universities. I am delighted to be able to reassure him that the Government are committed to continuing further expansion, even above the dramatic levels of improvement that we have achieved in the past few years.

Mr. Ron Brown: Despite the Minister's statement, fewer than 10 per cent. of working-class youngsters get to university in Scotland, while failures from the English public school system receive first preference at certain universities, especially Edinburgh. What does the Minister intend to do about that?

Mr. Lang: Access to university must depend on academic qualifications. I am delighted to say that more than one in five school leavers in Scotland now enter higher education, which is much higher than the United Kingdom average. The Government are committed to increasing the population in higher education, and hope that it will be as high as 30 per cent. of the relevant population in six years' time.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Did my hon. Friend notice the recent remarks of Lord Chilver, the chairman of the Universities Funding Council, commending the broadly based Scottish education system? Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that that system, based on a four-year honours course, puts additional financial burdens not only on the universities but on the students? Will he ensure that resources are made available in both sectors, to maintain our excellent record in terms of the additional number of students that we have gained in the Scottish universities?

Mr. Lang: Lord Chilver certainly had some kind and complimentary things to say about the quality of Scottish higher education. The fact that in Scotland a substantially higher proportion of the relevant population enters higher education shows that the four-year degree course is no disincentive. Overall expenditure this year is up by 11 per cent. on last year. That is the highest-ever level of student awards, and reflects the Government's commitment.

Mr. Worthington: When it is cheaper to produce a graduate in this country than in almost any other western European country, the United States or Japan, why are the Government intent on cost cutting and standard cutting? Why is the Minister satisfied with one in five of our

youngsters' receiving higher education, when in Japan, Sweden, America, Canada, France and Denmark the proportion is already one in two?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on the fact that we have the most generous support for students in the western world. Eighty per cent. of full-time students receive support in this country, compared with 12 per cent. in Japan. The expansion that we are achieving was not achieved by the Labour party. I am delighted that we are moving down this road, and I am sure that the Scottish economy will benefit from it.

Law Reform

Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the proposed changes set out in part II of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rifkind: I have received a number of representations. I am pleased to be able to report to the House that, as a result of informal discussions with the Law Society of Scotland in the past few weeks we have today reached agreement with regard to the proposals in part II of the Bill.
The Law Society of Scotland has informed us that it is able to accept that the solicitors' monopoly with regard to conveyancing should cease. The Government for their part accept that the provisions in the Bill allowing persons other than solicitors to provide conveyancing services should be limited to independent qualified conveyancers. The provisions will not apply to the financial institutions.
The Government and the Law Society of Scotland have also agreed that the provisions in the Bill with regard to multi-disciplinary practices should be made the same for solicitors as for advocates. There are also some detailed points in part II which I have recently discussed with the Law Society of Scotland and am considering.
On that basis, the Law Society of Scotland has informed us that it is able to welcome part II of the Bill and is anxious to see it appear on the statute book. I am also able to inform the House that the Scottish Consumer Council has indicated that it, too, welcomes the agreement that has been reached.
I would like to thank the Law Society of Scotland for the constructive and helpful discussions that we have had, which have enabled us to reach this amicable agreement.

Mr. Doran: That is clearly a major statement—and a major retreat—by the Secretary of State. I am sure that he made it freely, and without any undue pressure. Substantial concessions have been made, however, and it is important to add that that is a tribute to the pressure applied by the Labour Members on the Committee. There are two outstanding questions that the Secretary of State has not addressed. Clearly, there is major concern about the other important measures in the Bill being rushed through in Committee, and about there being insufficient time to deal with them. Perhaps the Secretary of State can advise the House what proposals he has for the other parts of the Bill.
Finally, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the agreement that he has announced


today is accepted by all his own Back Benchers, as we have had the privilege of watching Tory Members and Ministers fighting like ferrets in a sack about the proposals?

Mr. Rifkind: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I can say without fear of contradiction that the views of Opposition Members on the Committee considering the Bill have been of less significance than usual in terms of the development of policy. As for the attitude of my hon. Friends, they must speak for themselves, as they often do, and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so. As for the other parts of the Bill, I am sure that the House as a whole hopes that there will be an opportunity to consider properly in due course the licensing and other provisions that hon. Members believe are important.

Sir Hector Monro: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend most warmly for his announcement and for the agreement that he has reached with the Law Society of Scotland. I thank him also for listening to his own Back Benchers' representations that in future rural solicitors should be able to compete fairly and play their full part in the community.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend. From my point of view, one of the most important questions that we addressed was the need to end the solicitors' monopoly over conveyancing. I am grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for agreeing to that proposition.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: In preparing for the humiliating climbdown that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just announced, did he have time to reflect on what he said in 1976—that a separate Scottish legal system needed a separate Scottish Parliament? Have not the tawdry and undignified scenes in the Corridor outside the Committee Room demonstrated the Government's inadequacy and inability to get their business through the House?

Mr. Rifkind: I can understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a distinguished lawyer, is disappointed about the Government's ability to reach agreement with the Law Society of Scotland on matters of this kind. I appreciate that he may have other interests in that respect. However, we have demonstrated that with good will it is possible to reach agreement. That is something which I am delighted to report to the House.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I warmly and wholeheartedly congratulate my right hon. and learned Gentleman on his achievement. He has done a great service to the people of Scotland, the institutions of Scotland and the integrity of the House. Does he agree with me that, given good will and some reasonable compromises on the later parts of the Bill, there is every reason to believe that the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill can be enacted in this Session of Parliament, having been considered at reasonable hours?

Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It will assist the Committee to know that with regard to that part of the Bill which has given rise to the greatest public interest both the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Consumer Council, which have occasionally adopted different views on certain matters, have enthusiastically endorsed the proposals?

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Bill began its life in the other House in February 1990. It has taken the Secretary of State from February to the beginning of July to discuss and enter into an agreement with the Law Society on part II. How on earth does he expect the Committee to discuss, in the three weeks that remain before the recess, something on which it has taken him six months to reach agreement with the Law Society of Scotland? Does the Secretary of State also accept that although he has been a member of the Committee since it began its work, the words that he has expressed at the Dispatch Box are the first words that he has uttered on the Bill as he left everything to his junior colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)? Does he appreciate that there is simply not enough time to get the Bill through its Committee stage?

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to pay a fulsome tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who has done a superb job in Committee. It is only in the recent past that the Law Society of Scotland has felt able to state its willingness to agree to the proposals that have been put before the House today. I pay tribute to the Law Society for its constructive contribution.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Although I recognise that the Secretary of State and his colleagues must feel very humiliated by this eleventh-hour decision, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House what discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry about competition policy, given that that is included in the Bill? The problems did not become apparent in February, but when the Green Paper was published last year clear antagonism was expressed. Why has it taken so long to recognise that the Bill is totally unrepresentative of the wishes of the legal profession, particularly in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady must appreciate that it is not just the interests of any one profession that the Government must take into account. We discussed competition policy with the relevant Departments arid I am delighted that the opportunities for greater choice are preserved on the basis of what I reported to the House today.

Mr. Speaker: Sir Nicholas Fairbairn.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Canavan: He has been called twice. It is ridiculous.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the agreement that he has reached with the Law Society of Scotland. I remind him of Churchill's words
In War, resolution; in defeat"—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman should ask a question, and please not give us reminiscences.

Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have the question.

Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are reaching the end of Question Time—

Mr. Eadie: I want to raise a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I will take the point of order, but it may affect the time available to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.

Mr. Eadie: Mr. Speaker, you must have observed—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Does this matter appertain to order during questions? If so, please make the point of order brief.

Mr. Eadie: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman sit down for a moment, please?

Mr. Eadie: I wish to raise a point of order which is germane to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Speaker: If it requires my immediate attention, I will take the point of order now, but we are in the middle of Question Time and I want to call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.

Mr. Eadie: It is important that you take my point of order now, Mr. Speaker. You have observed what happened in the course of Question Time. A specific question was used by the Secretary of State to make what was, in essence, a statement and not an answer to the question. The whole issue is certainly important and germane to Scotland. You know what happened yesterday in the House, when there was an endeavour by the Government and by Ministers to abuse the procedures of the House and to abuse Parliament. I ask you to do your duty Mr. Speaker, as it is your responsibility to protect Back Benchers—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr.Eadie: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please now sit down? I trust that I speak for the whole House when I say that I hope that there will not be a repetition of the disgraceful scenes that we had yesterday—[Interruption.] I am protecting Back Benchers.

Mr. Eadie: No, you are not.

Mr. Speaker: The question was on the Order Paper and the Minister has a right to give his answer to that question. I wish to call Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, and then the Oppositon Front-Bench spokesman, to conclude the discussion on the question. I will not hear the hon. Gentleman any more.

Mr. Eadie: Further to that point of order

Mr. Speaker: I must order the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. Eadie: No. On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] It is—

Mr. Speaker: I should be very reluctant to take severe action in the case of such a senior Member. I order the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. Eadie: I am not going to resume my seat.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, under the powers granted me, I reluctantly say that if the hon. Gentleman does not obey the Chair, I must ask him to leave the Chamber. I am reluctant to do so.

Mr. Eadie: I will leave the Chamber, but something will have to be done about the chairmanship of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I have to order the hon. Member to leave the Chamber.

Mr. Canavan: We should all walk out. This is a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that we shall not have a repetition of the scenes that we had yesterday. I receive a great deal of post and representations from members of the general public. The reputation of the House is in the hands of its Members. It is up to us inside this Chamber to set a good example to those outside.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I will continue the question that I was asking. It was in response to a question from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) who asked whether the Secretary of State would make a statement. Given good will and consideration of the requirements of the people of Scotland and its legal services, will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my congratulations on what he has done today and remember the words, "so far, so good"?

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Speaker: This is not a precedent because we are now past the end of Question Time, but, in view of the point of order, which should not have been raised then, I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.

Mr. Dewar: My criticism of the fact that there is no statement is directed at the Secretary of State for Scotland. I entirely understand that you. Mr. Speaker, had to call question No. 14. It is unfortunate that an important announcement has been compressed into this unsatisfactory parliamentary space. However, I welcome what the Secretary of State has said as far as it goes. It is a remarkable retreat, although I fear that it is not a matter of intellectual conversion but has been forced on the Secretary of State by his total isolation and the evident lack of confidence in his competence among Conservative Back Benchers.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the effect of what he has said is that the banks, building societies and larger institutions will not now take on conveyancing work? Will he note our strong view that, however valuable the lobbying of the Law Society of Scotland may have been, the matter should not be decided by a deal on that basis but is an issue for the Standing Committee and, ultimately, the House? I did not like the way in which the Secretary of State suggested that the matter was settled. Is he not, in effect, accepting the amendments to part II of the Bill which have been standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends for some time?
Finally, I have an important question. Do I understand from what the Secretary of State has said that he does not intend to proceed to a guillotine and expects to avoid that? That must imply that large sections of parts III and IV of the Bill will have to be dropped if progress is to be made.
I am certainly prepared, as my hon. Friends will be, to be constructive, but we must make it clear from the beginning that the only way to save the Bill from the chaos created by the Secretary of State's mismanagement is to enter into talks and to drop the parts that are not agreed in the rest of the measure.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman, in questioning my right to make the remarks that I did today, should reflect that the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) was to ask me to make a statement. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to complain that that is exactly what I have done. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is quite correct that the Standing Committee and, ultimately, the House will determine whether the proposals in the Bill are acceptable, but they will wish to take into account the views of outside organisations which have taken an interest in the issue. The hon. Gentleman is also correct in saying that a number of the amendments that he has put down relate to matters to which I referred earlier. That will be relevant at a later stage. Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman's

interest in discussing these matters with other members of the Committee. The use of the guillotine is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. However, in the light of progress and of the agreements to which I referred earlier, I think that the matter has been overtaken by events.

Mr. Speaker: Statement—Mr. Secretary Clarke.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order later.

Mr. Douglas: That is no way to deal with Scottish legislation—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Douglas: These matters should be dealt with through the usual channels and not decided by the Law Society of Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order later, in their usual place. I call Mr. Secretary Clarke.

NHS Trusts

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Yesterday I gave a full response to 32 questions about the establishment of national health service trusts. I said then that 199 national health service units had expressed interest in NHS trust status. These included single hospitals, groups of hospitals and non-hospital facilities. I understand that about 60 to 70 of those units which have expressed interest in trust status are likely to submit applications in the first wave for April 1991. I also explained that there would be three months of full public consultation on each application which will be undertaken by the relevant regional health authority. I stressed that, ultimately, my decision would be based on my assessment of whether, in the light of all relevant factors, NHS trust status for a particular unit will benefit national health service patients in that locality.
I do not propose to go over the ground that I covered yesterday in answer to hon. Members' questions. However, there are a few further points that I should like to make. First, I wish to state again, absolutely and categorically, that NHS trusts will, as their name makes clear, remain fully part of the national health service. Their staff will be national health service staff, their property will be national health service property, the bulk of their funds will come from contracts with health authorities, and the overwhelming majority of their patients will be NHS patients.
NHS trusts will be established by the Secretary of State. Their chairmen and a number of the non-executive members will be appointed by the Secretary of State. They will be accountable to the Secretary of State for the performance of their functions, and they can be dissolved by the Secretary of State.
I am glad to say that there is a great deal of interest in trust status within the national health service. Already in the few days since the Act received Royal Assent, we have received 12 applications. A further 25 or so units have informed my Department that they will be submitting early applications, and a substantially larger number expect to apply by 20 July. Twelve is the up-to-date figure at 3.15 when I left my office, but applications are coming in all the time. The first 12 applications are from Bradford acute services, Leeds general infirmary and associated hospitals, St. James's university hospital, Leeds, Central Middlesex hospital, North Middlesex hospital, Southend district services, Crewe acute services, the regional adult cardio-thoracic unit, Liverpool, Royal Liverpool children's hospital, East Gloucestershire district services, Mid-Surrey health authority general unit and the royal national orthopaedic hospital.
That first list includes major teaching hospitals, such as Leeds general infirmary and St. James's university hospital Leeds. St. James's is the largest teaching hospital in Europe. The Royal Liverpool children's hospital has an international reputation. Its application states that the promoters believe that
local control and management is the most appropriate organisational model for the largest acute paediatric hospital and community child health services in Western Europe".
Clearly, all those applications and the others that arrive will need to be tested through the consultation process that

we have set in place, and I shall want to look carefully at the proposals and the comments made on them before deciding whether to approve applications.
Finally, I re-emphasise the very real benefits that we see flowing from trust status. Trusts will be able to use the range of powers and freedoms which I have previously outlined for the benefit of patients, to improve above all the quality of service which they provide to our patients in our national health service.

Mr. Robin Cook: The House will recall that yesterday the Secretary of State assured the House of the enthusiasm for his plans. If there is so much enthusiasm for his plans, why is he so afraid of letting local people decide for themselves whether their hospitals go self-governing? Why does he have to take that decision for them? Is not the real reason why the Secretary of State will not allow local people to ballot that he knows that he would lose?
May I press the Secretary of State on the interesting shift in the text overnight? Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Gentleman told the House that trust hospitals
will be free to determine the terms and conditions of service of the staff they employ, to acquire, own and dispose of assets".—[Official Report, 3 July 1990; Vol. 175, c. 862–63.]
But today the Secretary of State told the House that their staff and property will belong to the national health service. Was he not right the first time? Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that trusts will be able to hire and fire what staff they please, or to impose what conditions they please, and to buy and sell property for financial gain? Why does not he admit also that trusts will belong to the NHS only in the sense that at a late stage of the Bill's progress, he stuck "NHS" in front of their names?
Will the Secretary of State come clean on what he means by a process of consultation? Will he confirm that in an article in The Times on Monday, when he was asked whether he would let a trust go ahead "despite overwhelming opposition", the right hon. and learned Gentleman replied, "Yes"? If that is his intention, why not tell us that now and admit that the consultation is a fraud—the fake product of Ministers who love to lecture and hate to listen?
If the Secretary of State wants fair consultation, will he reveal who he will appoint as the chairs and directors of the trusts? [HON. MEMBERS: "Tories."] Before the public are consulted about the future of their hospitals, will they be told which industrialists or friends of the Tory party he is to put in charge of them? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants fair consultation, will he respond to the many doctors who have reported that they were put under pressure either by bribery or blackmail to agree to go self-governing as the price of development funding?
As the Minister who commended to the House the Rover deal, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that this time there will be no hidden sweeteners to go self-governing?
Is not the real reason why the Secretary of State cannot allow fair consultation that he cannot convince the public? Does not he understand that he can spent £3 million on the most expensive election address in history, but that he will not persuade the public that fragmenting the NHS will make it more efficient, or that turning their hospitals into business enterprises will make them more caring?
I warn the Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—that if, after consultation, he goes ahead against the will


of local people, ignores their views, and makes their hospitals self-governing against their wishes, they will vote for a Government who will listen to them, and who will take their hospitals back into their local NHS.

Mr. Clarke: We are here considering the future of probably the most important public service in the country, and how best to raise the quality of care that it gives to its patients. The hon. Gentleman's roustabout, knockabout nonsense does not rise to the importance of the subject matter, which he reduced to almost ridiculous proportions.
The hon. Gentleman persists in arguing that the whole exercise should be reduced to ballots, to pursue what he described last week as his desire to have a by-election in every place where the staff of a hospital apply for NHS transfer status. No process of public consultation that I can recall on any important issue has been subjected to local referenda, of whatever electorate—certainly not by his Government or any other. Childish political ranting of the sort that we have just heard is no way to determine the future method of management of great hospitals such as St. James's hospital, Leeds, the Royal Liverpool children's hospital, or the others that I listed.
NHS trusts will employ national health service staff. They will be their own staff. Just as Nottingham district health authority, which is in the national health service, employs national health service staff, so if any hospitals become NHS trusts, they will employ their own staff as NHS staff. It is absurd for the hon. Gentleman to keep repeating that somehow their staff, property or premises will cease to be national health service staff, property or premises.
If the hon. Gentleman continues to deploy that sort of argument as his contribution to public consultation on such important matters, I can only believe that he is deliberately trying to alarm and deceive the staff who work in the hospital to get them to come to an opinion that is contrary to the facts. I do not want that sort of contribution from the hon. Gentleman or anyone else, although criticism of the proposals will be welcome if it is constructive.
We are seeking a serious process of local public consultation, during which those most affected can properly consider the proposals being put forward by the staff and managers of the hospitals, make comments on them and give their view about their probable effect on services. That will serve the purpose that public consultation is meant to serve, in all such ministerial decisions, by helping me to make a better informed decision that takes into account every serious proposition on the issue. The Labour party, which has no policies on health care, will use the whole process for rent-a-mob demonstrations, usually in the high streets of our towns, but occasionally on the Floor of the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the importance of the statement, but we have an important debate today on the arts. It is a rare opportunity to debate the arts. [Laughter.] I assure hon. Members that it is no laughing matter. So great has been the pressure to take part in the debate that I may have to impose a limit of 10 minutes on speeches. Therefore, I ask for single questions to the Secretary of

State. If hon. Members inadvertently ask more than one question, I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would answer only the first.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware of the position that I sought to describe yesterday, but other colleagues will not be aware of how large the Trent-region is. It provides cardiac surgery to the north in Sheffield and cardiac surgery to the south in Leicester. Local medical and surgical opinion in Nottingham rightly sought to have that provision in Nottingham in the Queen's medical centre. Under local management, would that local decision be possible and not subject to an external veto?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for waiting 24 hours for the answer to his question. More serious cardiac services are usually a regional specialty. Under the new arrangement the regions can continue to provide them as a regional specialty, and that includes deciding on the best location for them. However, where a hospital has opted for NHS trust status, one reason for doing so would have been because it wished to put forward its plans for the development of services in that hospital. Whether an NHS trust would be likely to proceed with the desire to develop cardiac services, as my hon. Friend has described, would depend on its ability to interest GPs and districts in providing the contracts for that service, if it was opened.
To that extent, taken with all the reforms the change will open the way to better, more local decisions, which are more influenced by the doctors, nurses and managers in great hospitals like the Queen's medical centre, which serves both our constituencies.

Mr. Frank Field: How can the Government justify their belief that when a private organisation such as a trade union takes action that could affect the public it should have a ballot, but that a public organisation which wishes to make a change in policy should not consult even when the public will be affected? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that his statement today against extending people's right to have a say on this matter was the argument that his party has used every time that the House has considered an extension of the franchise?

Mr. Clarke: With the greatest respect, that is a quite extraordinary analogy. A trade union that takes industrial action is asking its members—a definable group; a quite clear constituency—to break their contracts of employment with their employers. It was wrong ever to have had a position in which a member of a trade union could be subjected to the discipline of the trade union, sometimes in a closed shop, without being allowed any say before the action started on whether he or she wished to break his or her contractual relationship with the employer.
I see not the slightest resemblance between that process and the process of public consultation which Governments of all complexions regularly allow to take place on all kinds of complex, special interest subjects. It so happens that the management of the NHS is one of the more complex matters with which Ministers and the House must deal. There is no defined electorate that could cast a vote in a ballot because no one knows in which hospital he or she is likely to be a patient. There is no group that owns the hospital or knows that its members are bound to be patients of that hospital. The ballots for which the


Opposition ask are part of the demonstration campaigning which they propose to lay on this summer. They know perfectly well that they would play no part in the decision-making of any political party which really believed that it would be in government.

Mr. Cecil Franks: In many respects, do not the new national health service hospital trusts correlate to the old hospital management committees and hospital boards? Is it not strange that the Opposition were content for the best part of 30 years to support the old structure but, for some peculiar reason, are not prepared to support the new one?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. During the first 25 years of the health service, we had local management. To some extent, we are reversing the 1972 changes. This is particularly ironic for me, because I was in the House at that time. I was the Government Whip on the Committee that considered the Bill that created district health authorities. The then Labour party fought to the death to defend the old local arrangements against the bureaucracy which it said we were creating. Now that we are reducing that bureaucracy, the Labour party is defending it.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Everything come to he who waits, Mr. Speaker. How far will we be able to trust self-governing trusts? Will they be run on the same basis as trust ports? The Secretary of State for Transport is encouraging the use of private Bills to privatise trust ports. Will not similar patterns begin to emerge for self-governing hospital trusts, in that those who are trusted to run one may decide to run away from that trust because of pressure from the right hon. and learned Gentleman?

Mr. Clarke: There is really no resemblance between NHS trusts and port trusts. I happen to think that privatising some of the trust ports is one of the best ways that one can find of improving their performance and the service that they give to industry. I have always been in favour of industrial privatisation. I am against the privatisation of the health service. I have always been against the privatisation of the health service and I will continue to be against it. The NHS trusts will be within the national health service, owning property that is NHS property, employing staff who are NHS staff and treating NHS patients who will not pay for the treatment. They bear no resemblance to the commercial world in which the port trusts work.

Mr. Michael Morris: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that, to date, I have not managed to support his broad reforms, but I recognise that there is great merit in the concept of NHS trusts. Therefore, I read with particular concern the leaflet on NHS trusts, which stated:
Those with an interest—staff, GPs, health authorities, community health councils and, above all, the local public—will be asked their views … and will have an opportunity to express an opinion".
Precisely how will that be done?

Mr. Clarke: It will be done by the process of consultation over three months which I am asking regional health authorities to conduct. I shall ask them to publish

the results of that consultation and come back to me with their comments so that I can make a better-informed decision.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reading that passage in my booklet. Like him, I would emphasise the "general public". The difficulty with public consultation is that it becomes dominated by overnight committees, various interest groups and trade unions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Oh, yes. The Labour party is pouring the community charge into all kinds of front organisations which will respond to the consultations. The general public's interests are most affected by how well local hospitals are run for their benefit. I hope that in the middle of this political process, which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is trying to stir up, the ordinary member of the public will give his or her views on what he or she would like from local hospitals.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Minister tell the truth and say that opting out of hospital services is a small step to privatisation? Patients will have to pay for treatment or to stay in hospital, in the same way as the Government introduced charges for eye tests and dental services.

Mr. Clarke: I always tell the truth, and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman believes the proposition that lies behind his question.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the great national teaching hospitals—I am concerned with the royal national orthopaedic, the last on his list—are particularly suited to NHS trust status, provided that there is balanced local consultation and that the eventual structure is right and rational? Will he reassure opinion that that will be done properly, with careful thought, and that site and buildings ownership will be properly settled so that those hospitals will be assured of a viable long-term future—particularly, of course, the RNOH?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The last application that I received before leaving the office was a letter which states simply:
The Staff of this hospital wish you to consider the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital for National Health Service Trust status.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The staff?

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that the staff's opinion will be rejected by the hon. Gentleman if it does not coincide with his own.
The new bodies must be established carefully. Before any application is approved, we will ensure that the people appointed to the board are competent, that their plans have been well drawn up and considered and that they are likely to be successful in delivering them. The point of consultation is to ensure that there is no chance of an ill-thought-out application getting through and that the approved applications enhance the service to patients.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: As the right-wing extremists in the Tory party fear the ballot box, will the Secretary of State spell out in some detail how consultation will take place? For example, if all the nurses at Broad Green and Alder Hey hospitals in Liverpool say, "No, we do not want this ideological dream of the Tory party", will he still go ahead and pursue these aims? Will


he still say yes to hospital trusts? Does he agree that the only people who are pursuing these proposals with vigour are the petty bureaucrats whom he appoints, who are looking not to the interests of the patients but for knighthoods and peerages?

Mr. Clarke: I will obey your injunction, Mr. Speaker, and answer only the first question. I do not answer for the right-wing extremists in the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman should address that question elsewhere.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the criterion by which he will reach judgments on applications is the quality of service that will be provided to patients? In the context of Leeds and the two applications from the great teaching hospitals, will he consider whether mergers of trust hospitals would be desirable and whether, as a consequence, rationalisation of district health authorities would be necessary?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend's premise that what matters is whether the change in status is likely to improve the quality of care to patients. In Leeds, it will be necessary to have a serious local discussion about the prospects of mergers of district health authorities, in which some are interested. Mergers of hospitals will not necessarily arise, but people wish to consider how the plans for both those great hospitals interrelate. The aim must be to set up a structure for managing and delivering the health service in Leeds that is likely to improve, to yet higher levels, the high standard of care in that city.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: How can anyone have confidence in the Secretary of State promising local public consultation that will be worthy of that term when his track record in managing the health service shows that he imposed a contract on doctors, against the clear evidence of consultations with them, and shows the total lack of consultation with ambulance workers throughout months of a damaging dispute which cost millions of pounds? The evidence of those consultations, as he confirmed from the Dispatch Box this afternoon, will come from political appointees, who will be appointed by him to an extent unparalleled in the history of the health service.

Mr. Clarke: I negotiated an agreement with the representatives of the GPs involving the stipulation for the first time of the services that GPs should provide to the public under the contract. I accept that that was later repudiated by the GPs, who said that they wanted the money without the description of services.
I did, indeed, resist the ambulance men's claim for a double-figure pay settlement and a high formula, because the health service could not afford it. The hon. Gentleman's test of democracy appears to be that people should be allowed to write their own contract of employment and specify the figure for their own pay. He says that it was undemocratic that I did not accept the GPs' and ambulance men's assertion of what they wanted. In both cases, I defended the public interest and, in the forthcoming consultation, I shall be bearing in mind the public interest—and not just special interests—in reaching my decision.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: As the public have never been balloted on hospital closures, on the location of specific regional facilities or on internal reorganisation of facilities in hospitals, why should they be balloted now?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. No Government of any political complexion have carried out a ballot on any decision in the health service since it was first created. The question of NHS trust status is one of the most complicated issues that has been put before the public during the lifetime of the NHS and it is particularly unsuitable for resolution by ballot.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The two teaching hospitals in Leeds provide a world-renowned service. They move at the frontiers of knowledge and during my 30 years in Leeds I have been surprised that provincial hospitals can be so good. What will happen now that the motive is a contract? How on earth will the hospitals be able to maintain university standards in conjunction with the university of Leeds given that the Government's proposals fly in the face of that aim?

Mr. Clarke: After April next year, all the hospitals in the national health service, whether self-governing or directly managed, will enter into contracts for the services that they deliver. They will not be commercial contracts—

Ms. Diane Abbott: Oh, dear.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Oh, dear.

Mr. Clarke: I advise the hon. Lady to read the White Paper, even at this late stage. There will be an agreement with the health authorities or the GPs, who will stipulate what services they want and what quality they require in exchange for an allotment of national health service resources to the hospital that will deliver those services. The separation of purchaser and provider has been welcomed by most people who have commented on the running of the health service. Even the Opposition are reported as saying that they accept the other way of describing the arrangements, which is that the money will follow the patient. I do not understand how the Opposition can have accepted the principle of what they have been describing for the past 12 months as the internal market but then continue their strident opposition to 1 he reforms that enshrine that concept.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Opposition did not want the statement today—[HON. MEMBERS: "We asked for it."]—because they do not want the public to hear that there is genuine enthusiasm among all sectors of the service? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Those hon. Members who ask "Where?" should look at the ballot of consultants at the London hospital which came out in favour of self-governing status. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Labour Members are interested only in trench warfare on behalf of their party political allies, the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees?

Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We continue to face strident demands for public consultation, which we have always said we want, from a party that will not even listen to the answers that we give to its alleged


questions on the subject. My hon. Friend is also right to point out that numerous ballots of consultants have come out heavily in favour of NHS trust status. I do not rely too heavily on ballots because I am consistent in my argument that straightforward ballots of any group, however important, cannot in themselves determine one way or the other the future management of a hospital. There are plenty of hospitals where staff and consultants have voted in favour of an application.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that there are those who want self-governing trusts, but some of them are concerned that officials will restrict their operations. The Secretary of State said that the trusts would be getting their contracts from health authorities. But will health authorities attempt to thwart such trusts and other hospitals that refuse to enter into contracts with them for particular services?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are those in the service who are keenly in favour of local management of hospitals and NHS trust status. They constantly ask me to reassure them that they really will be given the local freedom to manage and develop hospitals as they wish. I keep giving them that assurance. They will be free from district health authority, regional health authority and Whitehall control of their day-to-day affairs. The contracts that we are describing will be entered into by every hospital and those contracts will be placed by the health authorities and by the patients on their assessment of the quality and value for money of the care that they are likely to receive under those contracts. Any other interference with self-governing hospitals' status and decision-taking will be ended by our reforms and they will be protected by the NHS trust documents that set them up.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many medical experts believe that this transfusion is just what the hospital service needs? Will he confirm that what he is now endeavouring to do, together with other health service measures, is to put the genuine public interest first over and above the partial and vested interests of some doctors, some bureaucrats and the Labour party?

Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The longer the process of introducing the reforms continues, the more opinion is changing—which it is doing quite rapidly—within the service in the direction that my hon. Friend describes and for the reasons that he gave.

Mr. John Fraser: Is the Secretary of State aware that even tonight my local hospital, King's College, is considering a massive programme of cuts, ward closures, cancellations and bed closures? If the hospital was a trust, would not people like myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and those who live in Dulwich and Bermondsey have the last vestige of democratic accountability removed from them because those cuts could be made without regard to local people?

Mr. Clarke: No hospital will acquire trust status unless it can demonstrate that it is well managed, can achieve

financial stability and has proposals for delivering the services that it wants within the resources that it is likely to get.
London health authorities, like all health authorities, face problems, but, like other authorities, they must deliver their services within the available resources. If London hospitals are allowed to disregard that, they will do so at the expense of other health authorities in the home counties from which the money would be drawn to cover the deficits. It is perfectly possible, as many London hospitals demonstrate, to deliver a good quality of service in acceptable quantities and stay within the generous allocations of funds that are nowadays made to the national health service.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: With an aging population and the ever-increasing costs of the national health service do not we need a dynamic, progressive and efficient health service? If hospitals feel that by governing themselves they can deliver better patient care, why should they not be allowed to do that? Incidentally, it is not compulsory, it is optional.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. Anyone who is seriously interested in the quality of health care wants it to be delivered by an efficient and well-run organisation. It is absurd to say that because something is a public service, it is wrong to look at efficiency, better decision-taking and the better use of resources and their delivery. The more important the service, the more important it is to get the right structure of management for it.

Mr. Bob Cryer: If the Secretary of State were to go into hospital for a serious operation, would he trust the doctors and nurses to have his life in their hands? If so, why does he not trust them to give their opinions about the national health service?

Mr. Clarke: The answer to the first question is, of course, yes. On medical matters, I pay considerable regard to their opinions. However, I would not necessarily find totally compelling the opinion of a surgeon on what car to buy or on a subject that was outside his immediate professional expertise. The doctors and nurses work inside the service and management matters a great deal to them; it will have regard to their views. If health care policy had always been dominated by the expressed opinions of doctors in ballots, we would not have had the national health service in the first place because they voted by 9:1 against the contract that Nye Bevan originally offered to them in 1948.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Since the creation of NHS trusts will tend to increase the power of comsumers at the expense of that of producers, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that only someone who was totally obsessed with protecting the power of trade union bosses and did not care a jot about how much he alarmed poor old patients would describe the matter in the terms used by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)?

Mr. Clarke: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. If there is one key to the changes that we are trying to make in public service to improve people's quality of life, it is that we want our public services to be dominated by the interests of consumers—in this case, patients—not by the interests of producers. The Labour party is an


old-fashioned syndicalist party, completely dominated by trade union interests, and deeply resistant to change of any kind in the public sector.

Mr. William O'Brien: May I advise the Secretary of State that St. James's hospital covers a large area of my constituency, and the constituents of Rothwell, who are served by the Leeds Eastern health authority, have made representations to the effect that they vigorously oppose the trust system for St. James's hospital? How will the consultation procedure apply to my constituents? Are not we witnessing an extension and a bigger stake of private hospital services in the national health service?

Mr. Clarke: I would seriously ask the inhabitants of Rothwellto look at the applications being made by the people who work at St. James's hospital, to look at what they propose for the development of services, and to consider their arguments.

Mr. O'Brien: How are they to do it?

Mr. Clarke: The application documents are public documents. We shall have a public consultation process. I trust that those who are promoting self-government for St. James's hospital will make sure that their case is available and is put across to the people of Rothwell. With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is doing any service to his constituents by turning round the proposals of local doctors as though local doctors are seriously suggesting turning the hospital into a private one. That is total nonsense and does not help the process of serious public consultation.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that patients of the royal national orthopaedic hospital, for example, come from such a wide area of the country that the only conceivable ballot of those interested would have to be a general election? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that our winning the next general election will put an end to the spurious demands for inappropriate consultation?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. It would be pointless to carry out a ballot of the residents of the immediate locality about the future of the royal national orthopaedic hospital, the Royal Liverpool children's hospital or quite a large number of hospitals that I have mentioned. The first point that was put forward by the proponents of the Royal Liverpool children's hospital is that
it is inappropriate that a hospital providing services to the vast majority of DHAs in the North West of England and Wales is managed by only one DHA.
They go on to set out other reasons, too. That applies to quite a number of the applications that we already have. Again, it shows that the idea of reducing the matter to a simple local ballot is an attempt to reduce the issue to ward politics, which is what Opposition Members are doing, whereas we are interested in the future of the service. At the general election, people will want to judge which party is putting most effort into trying to keep up and improve the quality of our national health service.

Mr. James Lamond: How can the House take the Secretary of State's argument seriously when hon. Members have had lectures from him over the years about the need to make local councils more

accountable and the need to make trade union officers more accountable through votes and political influence? It is now suggested that a major change in the national health service cannot be put to the consumers of whom he spoke so movingly because the Secretary of State does not know how to define them. How can he conduct serious consultations if he does not know who should vote, and how does he know whom to consult?

Mr. Clarke: The point has just been answered extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). There is no definable electorate. No doubt that is only one of the reasons why no Government have suggested that local changes of this sort should be put to the views of the local electorate. If the Labour party has no views of its own on how to run the health service and says that the matter should be reduced to a yes/no referendum of the local population, it shows that it is in a desperate situation.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Southend-on-Sea has again given a lead to the country, with the support of its Members of Parliament, in being among the first 12 to apply. Does the Secretary of State accept that apart from the advantage of local management, the other advantage that we see, and which others should see, is that this is a way of escaping from the bureaucratic nightmare of being, for years and years, an underfunded district in an overfunded region? Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain that the proposals can help some areas, such as Southend?

Mr. Clarke: For years, Southend has suffered from being a low-funded district in a well-funded region and has been badly affected by the RAWP system. I congratulate Southend district health authority on the quality of the care that it succeeds in providing with much lower resources than would be available to an equivalent population in most other parts of England. Other parts of the reforms will help Southend, such as the new system of allocating finance, to be introduced in April. That will put into the district health authority's hands the cost of providing care for its residents and will enable it to have more control over its use. Southend has shown that it wishes to get out of the present situation and to put to better advantage the good qualities of management and care that it has shown when facing its difficulties over recent years.

Mr. Terry Fields: On the point about consultation, is the Secretary of State aware that today in Liverpool, while the area health authority is grappling with the problems of the pan-Liverpool plan for the NHS, four of his place henchmen have drawn up a secret agenda to start charging for breast cancer treatments for women under 50 years of age, and for treatments for people who are suffering from other complaints? Is he aware that they are selling off parts of Liverpool hospitals? Is he aware that those things are already on the agenda? Is he further aware that 1 he regional drugs unit in the city is underfunded, thus bringing on an epidemic of AIDS because of prostitutes and drug addicts? Who is telling the truth in all this? Is the Secretary of State telling the truth? Are the people of Liverpool lying? There is an agenda.

Mr. Clarke: Area health authorities were abolished nine years ago. It will remain illegal to charge for national health service treatments.

Mr. Tony Favell: Everybody is resistant to change—whether they are miners, trade unionists, workers in a town hall or lawyers. I do not like it when my wife tells me that I have to change. But national health service workers have to change just like everybody else. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it seems particularly ironic that, having complained for years about interference from district health authorities, regional health authorities, the Department of Health and the Treasury, and having at last been given the opportunity to be masters of their own destiny, the trade unions are now whipping up the nurses, doctors and the like to oppose these changes, which should be very welcome to us all?

Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We all understand that the prospect of change is deeply disturbing to everybody who works in a large organisation. That is bound to be the case and it is wholly understandable. It is the task of the leaders, the managers and the leading consultants in the hospital to manage that change in such a way as to address the legitimate fears of their staff, to reassure them, to help them to understand the new arrangements, and to seek to persuade them of the benefits of what they want to do. The only contribution from the labour and trade union movements to that is to go round spreading ridiculous fears among the staff and the public, to try to get them to make some instant decisions and to vote in the comic ballots that they keep saying that they want to organise.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Secretary of State explain the consultation exercise a little further? For instance, will it be similar to the one currently taking place in Halifax about the proposed closure of three wards because of a £1.2 million deficit? Although that consultation period ends at the end of August, the management have already closed the wards. When I complained and said that the consultation period was not yet over and that they were breaking the procedures, the management said that they wanted to give staff their annual leave. Is that how it will be? Will it simply be a fraud that is perpetrated on those taking part?

Mr. Clarke: The procedures that we follow are exactly the same as those followed by the previous Labour Government. Where a major change in service is proposed, there is a process of public consultation. If the community health council continues to disagree with the district health authority, the proposal is submitted to a Minister who makes a decision one way or the other. There has always been provision for emergency closures, but they eventually have to go through that process. The previous Government followed that practice, and we do. I have never heard any suggestion that it should be made subject to a ballot.
The fact that parts of the health service are still gripped by crisis management, causing frustrations with sudden closures of wards, shows the weakness of the present method of running it. Moving on to a proper basis of running it with local management being given more autonomy will eliminate much of the need for stop-go control.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Northwich Victoria infirmary is one of the first three hospitals to apply for self-governing status and that that hospital is in my constituency? Like Southend, it is in an underfunded district in a region which is close to its RAWP target. Consequently, local flexibility should lead to more comprehensive and cost-effective provision of health care for everyone in my constituency and is greatly to be welcomed. The Opposition opposed local management of schools and are against the local management of hospitals. When they were in government, they trampled with hob-nailed boots over the electorate in the imposition of comprehensive schools. Why does my right hon. and learned Friend think that they are always against local management?

Mr. Clarke: I have on the Table of the House the applications from my hon. Friend's constituents and others in Cheshire. I commend to the people of Cheshire the proposals from their local managers and doctors and ask them for their response. My hon. Friend is commending those proposals as likely to enhance the standard of care. The Labour party, as he rightly says, is against local control and prefers centralised command and bureaucracy because that is the preference of the trade unions that dominate all Labour party thinking on health service matters.

Mr. Martin Redmond: If the Secretary of State wants to improve the health service, he should resign. That would be the best tonic that I know for the health service. The Secretary of State has confirmed this afternoon that he is completely discarding the consultation process and basing his judgment or approval on the plans submitted by the applicants. If that is the case, why bother with consultation? If there are criteria to be met, why is the health service not meeting them today?

Mr. Clarke: I said the precise opposite of that. I have announced that there will be a process of public consultation which I trust will enable me to take a better-informed decision. Before making any decision, I shall take into account all the representations put before me. If, as is very likely, there is an application from Doncaster, I shall wait to see what the people of Doncaster say before I reach a decision. The people of Doncaster are likely to make more sensible representations if they disregard the nonsense that the hon. Gentleman keeps putting out to the town about how the proposals are paving the way for privatisation and that they might have to pay for their care.

Mr. David Wilshire: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in the south-east the national pay and conditions that apply in the health service and the difficulties of disposing of surplus land stand in the way of improving the health service in my constituency? Does he agree that, far from the claims made by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), giving trust managers a greater say in pay and conditions and who they hire and fire is a good thing and that making it easier for them to dispose of surplus land is a plus? That is the way to achieve better services for our constituents.

Mr. Clarke: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend about the desirability of local flexible pay in a giant and complicated service such as this. I do not think that the


hon. Member for Livingston has ever run anything. Only on that basis could he possibly continue to argue that an inflexible national system of pay, terms and conditions for more than 1 million staff in every part of the country is a sensible way of running such a giant and important service.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will not give the go-ahead to any opting-out proposals if the community health council—the local patients' voice in the national health service—is firmly opposed to that proposal? Will he assure the House that he does not propose to reduce the current powers of community health councils or to abolish them?

Mr. Clarke: For 19 years, no one has given the community health councils an absolute power of veto over local decisions. I shall pay careful attention to the views of community health councils, and to everyone else, but I shall not put the management of the health service totally into the hands of the local community health councils. I certainly have no intention of changing the powers of the community health councils and, contrary to the wishes of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have no intention of abolishing them. We left them out of the process of reform; they are one part of the health service that remains completely unchanged in composition, powers and duties.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. and learned Friend will have heard the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), when opposing self-governing trusts, say that the only thing that the health service needs is more funding. Does he share my surprise, therefore, that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) did not include any more money for the health service among the two definite commitments that she made on the subject? What credence can be given to the statement by the hon. Member for Livingston when the previous Labour Government cut the hospital building programme by 30 per cent. and cut nurses' wages, in real terms, in four out of their five years in office?

Mr. Clarke: I did not hear that remark—

Mr. Robin Cook: I did not say it.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is anxious to point out that he did not make it. He is not promising any more funding for the national health service. He has been prevented from promising any more money for the service in any sensible terms. The only money that he is going to spend is £90 million on restoring NHS sight tests, mainly for the benefit of the optical chains which have been lobbying for that. As far as I am aware, that is the only spending promise to which the Labour party remains committed.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: The Secretary of State has continually referred to "a serious process of consultation", which he says will be undertaken. Who will pay for it? Will health authorities have to pay out of their current budget, or will they get additional money? What criteria will he use to assess whether the consultations are being conducted properly?

Mr. Clarke: The cost of consultation—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady cannot hear what I am saying. The cost of consultation will come out of the costs of implementing the

reforms, for which we have already accounted to the House. The criteria that I shall apply will be whether the proposals are likely to result in an improvement in the delivery of health care to national health service patients served by the unit in question.

Mr. Michael Jack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that the attack levelled on his announcement today by the Opposition casts doubt on the integrity of the clinicians and managers who will run the NHS trusts—as if, by the very creation of trusts, those people will not be motivated to deliver extra patient care?

Mr. Clarke: Yes, I think that many of the remarks made today are a direct attack on local managers and doctors who have spent a great deal of effort in putting forward these proposals. Many of the people who have put in such effort will be extremely annoyed to hear them reduced to that level by the Opposition, who claim that somehow they are all proposing to raffle off their hospitals or to charge patients. That is an insult to the local doctors who work in these great institutions and who have put plans forward.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Because of the pressure of business I propose to move on to the ten minute Bill at 4.40. I hope that I shall be able to call all the hon. Members who wish to speak, provided that they are brief.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Secretary of State reassure me that, in the event of trust status being granted to any hospital, and there being an excess of income over expenditure at the end of any financial year, that excess will be mandatorily reinvested in the hospital, and not put in the pockets of the trustees or their friends?

Mr. Clarke: Yes, Sir. One of the powers of the new trusts will be to accumulate surpluses, but they will have to be used for the benefit of the trust. There is no question of trustees being paid any extra sums out of the surpluses, as the hon. Gentleman fears.

Ms. Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State will be aware that one hospital that has expressed an interest in opting out—although it is not on his list—is Bart's hospital in east London which serves my constituents in Hackney. It is the oldest hospital in London, founded specifically to care for the poor. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is precisely the poor who will suffer if Bart's opts out and balancing its books becomes its bottom line, because it would have to focus on high turnover and high income-generating specialties at the expense of the old and the chronically sick?

Mr. Clarke: St. Bart's is one of our most famous hospitals. Nowadays it caters for all patients, regardless of their means, and it delivers a high standard of care. The hon. Lady's description of what NHS trust status means is frankly nonsense. I thought that we had moved some months ago from the argument that anyone in an NHS trust will have to concentrate on high-tech, high-profit lines. Most people who have studied the White Paper realise that that argument has nothing whatever to do with, and is a meaningless description of, the proposals that we have made: for trusts to stay within the national


health service, to provide free treatment and to develop their services as the local managers, doctors and nurses would wish for the best.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State answer the one question that he has ducked all afternoon? Will he give a firm assurance that, if the consultation period results in clear decisions against the setting up of trusts on the part of those who have been consulted, he will adhere to those expressions of opposition; or does he intend to don his Thatcherite jackboots and stamp all over local opinion in his usual arrogant and high-handed fashion?

Mr. Clarke: That is a bit rich, coming from an ex-chairman of the GLC. My approach to public consultation is indistinguishable from that of every Minister in any Government for as long as I have been in the House. The Minister retains the responsibility for the decision. Public consultation is to allow everyone to have their say, with the intention that the Minister shall eventually take a better-informed decision with the benefit of all the advice that he can get from people who have an interest. We have never handed over decisions to a mere counting of heads. I do not recall that the GLC did so either, except during the periodic intervals when—unfortunately—it succeeded in being re-elected.

Mr. Jack Thompson: I did not detect in the Secretary of State's statement any comment about the Government's policy on new hospitals. The Secretary of State is aware that a new hospital is being built in my constituency for which we have waited for more than 10 years. As yet we have no staff appointments—at any level—at that hospital. I fear that it may be the Government's policy to introduce a formula saying that such appointments will be conditional on the staff supporting opting-out, either formally or informally.

Mr. Clarke: I well remember laying the foundation stone of the great new hospital in the middle of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He arrived with a traditional demonstration carrying anti-poll-tax banners but discussing among themselves what the demonstration was about. In a field surrounding the hospital site, they concocted the extraordinary argument that it was a demonstration against the possibility that when the hospital was opened it might become a self-governing NHS trust. If that is his way of trying to take the gilt off the gingerbread of a huge investment in the local health service, I give the hon. Gentleman a prize for originality. The hospital will open in the ordinary way as an NHS hospital. It will be for the local staff—doctors, nurses and managers—to decide whether they wish to apply for NHS trust status.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the Secretary of State try to clear up the welter of confusion that he has caused among hon. Members? When he says that a hospital is applying to become a self-governing trust, and one of his colleagues behind him says that a hospital feels that it should apply, what are they talking about? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman define "hospital"? Is it an animate object, or who in the hospital will do this? What kind of hypocrisy has gone on? Will the Secretary of State make that clear, as we genuinely do not know the answer?

Mr. Clarke: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman: he is quite right. I disapprove of the habit of Opposition Members who, when they say that the nurses have said something, mean that COHSE has said it; similarly, when they say that the doctors have said something, they mean that the BMA has said it. I agree that I should not readily say that the hospital says something, but the names of the promoters are readily identifiable. The letters to me are signed. The would-be chairman is clearly identifiable, as will be the people putting forward local proposals. It will be for the local public to present their views for and against the propositions that the local managers, doctors, nurses and others wish to advance.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: If the Secretary of State accepts that it is impossible to run a hospital without doctors, consultants, surgeons, nurses, cleaners, porters, secretarial staff and ancillary workers of all descriptions, will he explain why very small groups of politically motivated senior management are allowed to make applications to set up hospital trusts and, in effect, sell the livelihoods and jobs of those under them—and also damage their working conditions in the long term?

Mr. Clarke: People who make such applications are motivated by a desire to be able to run their hospital units in the best possible way. I am sure that many people who promote those applications are not supporters of the Government or the Conservative party. It will be for the staff of the hospitals to put forward their views—as can everyone else—on the proposals. One thing must be made clear to the staff: they will remain national health service staff, with continuity of employment and their existing contracts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will help me to make that clear to them.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Is the Secretary of State aware that two initial applications were made from Coventry for the Coventry and Warwickshire and the Walsgrave hospitals? According to the list that the Secretary of State gave this afternoon, both hospitals are not being proceeded with. The applications were made by appointed unit managers who did not consult a single doctor, nurse, ancillary worker or patient. Thousands of people in Coventry signed petitions against the initial applications and handed them to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) and me. If formal applications are made, who will the Secretary of State consult—the staff, the patients or the unit managers who appear to want to be big fish in small ponds?

Mr. Clarke: I shall consult all the groups that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That is the whole point of the exercise. We have now received real applications from people who have described their plans. We propose to hold consultations on those applications with the general public and all the interest groups to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He has been running a daft campaign in Coventry, organising petitions against applications before they have been received and before he knows what they say. If the hon. Member for Livingston will allow us to move on to a more sensible basis for discussion, there will be a much more intelligent local consultation process about how best to improve the national health service.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that he should be ashamed of himself for saying earlier that the crisis in the national health service is down


to the nurses, the staff and all the other people who work in it? The real reason for the crisis in the NHS is the Secretary of State. People outside this place will be intrigued to know how the consultation is to take place. The nurses and staff will not have a vote. The general public and the consultants will not have a vote. How will the consultation take place? Does the Secretary of State intend to stare in the mirror? The general public will not like what it sees there.

Mr. Clarke: I am reassured to hear that my appearance in the mirror will not solve anything; it worries me at times. As for the hon. Gentleman's other point, I did not say what he says I said, or anything like it. He must have had difficulty with hearing what I said because of the hooligan behaviour from time to time of some of those sitting around him.

Mr. Robin Cook: May I repeat one question? If consultation establishes that a majority of the staff at a hospital and the majority of the public that the hospital serves are opposed to the hospital becoming self-governing, does he intend to listen only to those consultations that give him the answer that he wants?

Mr. Clarke: I have described the process of public consultation. My description of it is indistinguishable from that which has been given by every Minister in any Government, of whatever political complexion. I trust that public consultation will help me to establish whether an application is well founded and in the interests of the health service and patients. The decision must be that of the Secretary of State for Health of the day. He is answerable to Parliament. If we ever had the misfortune of the hon. Gentleman occupying my position as Secretary of State for Health, I am sure that he would not get up and say, "I am going to stop running the service and will hand the whole thing over to local ballots." The hon. Gentleman reveals his inexperience and lack of ideas when he advocates such a procedure.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 20 JULY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Roger Sims
Mr. Kevin McNamara
Ms Dawn Primarolo

Points of Order

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the points of order, but I must point out to hon. Members that a very important debate is to follow. Therefore, I hope that those hon. Members who wish to raise points of order will have some consideration for their colleagues. I shall take first the point of order of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that I have already given you notice of this point of order. I have also given the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) notice of it, although he is not in his place now.
You will be aware, Sir, of the importance that all Back-Bench Members place on Adjournment debates. It provides us with the opportunity to raise very important constituency issues in the House and to receive a ministerial reply. You will also be aware that, if any other hon. Member wishes to take part in the debate, he must obtain the prior permission of both the Minister and the hon. Member whose Adjournment debate it is. I draw to your attention—they appear in today's Hansard—the events that took place last night during the Adjournment debate that I had sought and obtained on the over-the-horizon radar planning application by the Ministry of Defence for a site at St. David's in Pembrokeshire. The hon. Member for Rhondda, who may have been tired because it was a late night debate, went to the Dispatch Box as the official Opposition spokesman on defence and interrupted my speech. He was told that I was not prepared to give way on a constituency matter, but during the next 25 minutes he proceeded to disrupt the debate continually on points of order and had to be told by Mr. Deputy Speaker to sit down. A shouting match took place then. He further aggravated the matter by using an unparliamentary expression against me, which he then withdrew.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman has apologised to Mr. Deputy Speaker, but he has not apologised to me for causing such disruption. May I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, in the light of yesterday's events, when the Minister was unable to finish his speech and answer the points that I wished to raise on behalf of my constituents, to defend the rights of Back Benchers so that Adjournment debates can take place without interruption from Front-Bench spokesmen?

Mr. Speaker: I have read Hansard and I have discussed the matter with Mr. Deputy Speaker. What he said is plain, and I repeat that it is an hon. Member's right, if he secures an Adjournment debate, to have full time, unless he is prepared to offer part of it to another hon. Member. Occasionally, hon. Members give way to their colleagues during an Adjournment debate, but what happened last night was not in the best traditions of the House.

Mr. Michael Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it can be further to the point of order. The hon. Member was not concerned in that debate. I shall take another point of order from the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. John Reid).

Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of Scottish Question Time. I regret the chaos and confusion into which those questions degenerated and the impossible position in which you have been placed. Unless the procedure is changed, the problem will arise again.
I have sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), specifically in relation to Question No. 14. The Secretary of State for Scotland came to the Dispatch Box and announced what amounted to the abandonment of half of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill which is at present in Committee. Two points arise out of that. First, by announcing that abandonment—a major decision—during Question Time, the Secretary of State did not permit the breadth of responses and questions that, had it been a statement, it would have merited.
The second point reflects equally on the House. Many people in Scotland cannot but regard today's announcement as a deal done outside the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's first point of order, but the second one appears to be an extension of Question Time, which would be out of order. Apropos Question 14, the Secretary of State was asked if he would make a statement about part II of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. It is implicit in the hon. Gentleman's point of order that, as with what happened yesterday, I have authority to say that the Secretary of State ought not to answer the question but should make a statement. I have no such authority. The Secretary of State, or any other Minister, must answer the question on the Order Paper. I judged it to be of such general importance to hon. Members with Scottish constituencies that I allowed a bit of a run on it. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) was distressed, but that is the reason why we did not reach his question.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assure you that nothing that I shall say implies criticism of the Chair. On the contrary; part of my anger, and that of my colleagues, is precisely due to the fact that, for the second day running, you have been placed in the same position because of the Government's conduct of business. We do not wish that to be imposed upon you.
It must have been clear to the Secretary of State for Scotland that the issues raised by his statement today went far beyond the normal scope and scale of Question Time. He chose to make a major statement by means of the mechanism of Question Time, in response to Question 14 on the Order Paper. That was clearly bound to distort Question Time, both before and after the statement. In normal circumstances, Question No. 14 might not have been reached.
In all the circumstances, was any contact made with you, Sir, by the usual channels about the manner in which the statement was to be made by the Secretary of State? If not, will you make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that what happened today was an abuse of the House which must not be repeated?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am dealing with one point of order at a time.
Certainly it was not an abuse of the House to answer a question on the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the usual channels, and, as the shadow Leader of the House said yesterday, this House proceeds by consent. On matters of this kind, it is for the usual channels to get together to decide on the best way to resolve difficulties of this kind. It is not a matter for the Chair. It puts the Chair in a difficult, if not intolerable, position if the occupant is constantly accused of failing to uphold the interests of Back Benchers because of something for which he has no direct responsibility. It is for the usual channels to resolve these matters.

Mr. Michael Brown: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), Mr. Speaker. Although I was not in the House last night, you can be assured that I shall be here for the Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) tomorrow on the Boundary Commission's inquiry into Lincolnshire and Humberside.
I want to raise a general point of order about Adjournment debates. In the event of an Adjournment debate being disrupted by hon. Members without the permission of the hon. Member who has that Adjournment debate, with the effect that that hon. Member loses one third of the time allocated, would it be possible to ensure that that hon. Member's Adjournment debate was extended by 10 minutes?

Mr. Speaker: That is not within our Standing Orders, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. I am glad that he will be here tomorrow night for the Adjournment debate, and if he wishes to take part, I hope that he will seek the permission of his hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell).

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to the point of order about the events of yesterday and today, Mr. Speaker. Today we have seen a repetition of some of the difficulties that occurred yesterday, which caused great difficulties for the House and for you, Mr. Speaker. The reply given today by the Secretary of State for Health surely underlines how absurd it was for the Government to think that to interpolate that type of statement into Question Time was a proper way in which to deal with the House. The proceedings on the statement went on for an hour and a half and show how necessary it was for that statement to be given today. The strong expressions of opinion made yesterday by Opposition Members were directed not against you, Mr. Speaker, but against the Government for choosing to seek to make such an important statement at the end of Question Time.
What happened yesterday illustrated the seriousness of the matter, especially given that the Government pretended that there was an agreement through the usual channels when there was no such agreement. Given yesterday's events, surely it was all the more absurd, outrageous or offensive—whatever word one might choose—for the Government to come along today and repeat the offence. They made a statement in the House, even though they knew what had happened yesterday.
Even though a question was on the Order Paper, the Government have a responsibility to treat the House


properly. They should have learnt from what happened yesterday and decided to make the statement about Scotland in the same way as the statement given on the health service. Surely, Mr. Speaker, you should use your influence to try to encourage the Government to treat the House fairly in such matters, particularly as we have had two examples in two days of what injury can be done if the Government do not abide by that practice.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am indeed seeking to use what influence I have in such matters—

Mr. Bob Cryer: You have a lot of influence.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Magisterial experience.

Mr. Speaker: I am certainly seeking to use what influence I have in such matters. Today's problem could have been avoided if an arrangement had been made through the usual channels to take the question at the end of Question Time, given that it concerned a major matter. Even though I may make such suggestions informally, I am not responsible for carrying them out.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the end of the debate on schools yesterday, a number of us witnessed the loutish behaviour of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) towards a lady Member of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member sure that this is helpful to the House? If so, he should withdraw the word "loutish", which seems to be designed to encourage disruption rather than to calm the House.

Mr. Arnold: I withdraw that word, but I should be grateful for your guidance on what you intend to do about the physical intimidation of a lady Member of the House, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science.

Mr. Speaker: Again, I was not in the Chair at the time, but Madam Deputy Speaker dealt with it very well.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Apologise."] Yesterday, during the Division I crossed the Chamber and berated the Minister about young children in Coventry being taught in toilets. It has been put to me that that was intimidatory and that that was harassment. It is now being said that that harassment was physical. I wish to make it clear that it was not intended in that way. It has been put to me that I should apologise, and I accept that. I do not apologise for my speech. I think that the entire education team should resign in disgrace about our bairns in Coventry.

Mr. Speaker: If, as I judge, the hon. Gentleman has apologised to the House, I accept that. I think that Madam Deputy Speaker, who was in the Chair, would also appreciate a note from him.

Mr. George Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seldom trouble you with points of order and hon. Members with the seniority of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) are seldom ordered out of the Chamber. Those facts demonstrate that

the credibility of Scottish government was called seriously into question at Question Time. That must be a matter for you, not only because of the disruption caused before and after Question 14—as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said—but because this is a serious matter which should command your attention. A Committee is sitting upstairs dealing with important legislation, and the Secretary of State for Scotland—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extension of Question Time. I am not concerned with a Committee sitting upstairs; I am concerned with what happens on the Floor of the House.

Dr. Reid: Further to my point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In relation to what happened yesterday and today, such demos do the House immeasurable harm in the eyes of the public. We are now seen on television, and such disruptions are damaging to our reputation. I also regret that the question tabled by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) was not reached, and I hope that he will come to see me about it so that I can resolve the matter with him. I cannot say any more than that.

Dr. Reid: Further—

Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Scottish questions, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) called my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State a liar. One does not expect—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If he did, I did not hear it. If I had heard it, I would have caused him to withdraw it. If the hon. Gentleman heard it he should have risen immediately on a point of order and I could have dealt with it then. I cannot deal with it now. I did not hear that remark and it is not helpful to pursue it now.

Dr. Reid: rose—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have obviously been reading Hansard quite a lot lately when you have not been in the Chair. I want to draw your attention to another matter that you obviously missed when, the other night, the Government were kept up until about half-past 2. You, Mr. Speaker, will know that there is a Standing Order about Members spying strangers. It is normally used by Back Benchers in an attempt to keep open government, to frustrate a Government with a massive majority and to stop them trampling over democracy—that is roughly it. What happened the other night—if you have not read it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I can save the time of the House—I have read it. As the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said yesterday, I know a good deal of what goes on in this Chamber, even when I am not present. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order for me?

Mr. Skinner: The point of order is this: as I explained earlier, the Standing Order is usually used by Back Benchers against the Government. Yesterday, the Government did not have 100 to closure the debate so they got a Back Bencher of their own, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), to come in and, rather surprisingly, shout "I spy strangers" so that they could


have a vote and waste parliamentary time in order to find out whether they had got 100 Members. If that is going to happen, it is time you put a stop to it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a waste of parliamentary time.

BILL PRESENTED

CROFTER FORESTRY (SCOTLAND)

Sir Hector Monro, supported by Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Allan Stewart, Mr. Bill Walker, Mr. Calum Macdonald, Mrs. Ray Michie and Mr. Charles Kennedy, presented a Bill to extend the powers of grazings committees in relation to the use of crofting land in Scotland for forestry purposes; and to make grazings committees eligible for certain grants in respect of such use: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 179.]

Dr. Reid: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I do not want a continuation of Question Time. What is the point of order that I can answer?

Dr. Reid: I am grateful for the opportunity to complete the point of order that I started earlier on. It is not an attempt to continue Question Time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman started to talk about what was going on in Committee, about which I have no knowledge.

Dr. Reid: It is about an abuse of the House, about which you, Mr. Speaker, are concerned, and the position in which you are being placed. I am not concerned merely because we do not get the opportunity to ask questions when an announcement such as today's is made, but because the perception of people outside Parliament is that a major Bill was abandoned during Question Time today on the express announcement of a deal done between lawyers outside the House and lawyers inside the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a clear continuation of Question Time. We have dealt with that matter. Ten-minute rule motion—Mr. Doug Hoyle.

Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member, I think, has only just come in—[Interruption.] All right—I imagine that one of his hon. Friends has told him what was said about him.

Mr. Maxton: I was sitting beside my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), who will confirm that I was here when the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) made his remark. When the Secretary of State replied to a question, I was severely provoked and used the word of which the hon. Member for Hendon, South accused me. I unreservedly withdraw that word—I emphasise that I withdraw the word.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member.

Trade Union Act 1984 (Amendment) (No. 2)

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Trade Union Act 1984 by extending by any time taken up by court proceedings the four week period in which a ballot must be implemented by a trade union.
[Interruption.]—I am receiving encouragement from one of the louts on the Government Front Bench, but despite that I shall continue.
We can see what happens when the law interferes in trade union affairs. Not even this anti-trade union Government intended what came about in the case of which I shall speak. In order to illustrate it, I must return to last year's docks dispute. The Trade Union Act 1984 provides for legal immunity for those strikes called within 28 days of an affirmative ballot by union members. The anomaly that was created was due to the docks dispute and was, by the Government's own admission, unintended and unforeseen.
The chronological order of events is that, on 2 May last year, the Transport and General Workers Union announced its intention to ballot its members on whether they wished to strike in response to plans to abolish the national dock labour scheme. On 8 May, the port employers issued a writ alleging that the strike action would be unlawful as it did not involve an immediate trade dispute. On 19 May, the Transport and General Workers Union held a ballot resulting in an overwhelming majority in favour of strike action. At that time, the union believed that, using the 28 days, it had until 16 June in which to start a strike lawfully. On 29 May, the court decided in favour of the union, but gave the port employers leave to appeal against that decision.
On 17 June, following an appeal by the employers, the Appeal Court reversed the original decision and granted the port employers an injunction preventing industrial action. The Transport and General Workers Union then decided to take the case to the House of Lords. On 21 June, the other place reversed the Appeal Court's ruling and lifted the injunction preventing industrial action. Unfortunately, by that time the union had exceeded the 28 days allowed for the ballot and was forced to hold another ballot at great expense.
Even on the Government's own admission, it was not intended under the Trade Union Act 1984 that, following an affirmative ballot of its members, a union would not have the freedom during the 28-day period to start a strike lawfully. During the docks dispute, the Transport and General Workers Union had no time to call a strike, because during the 28 days it faced court action and so could not have a ballot.
The spirit of the Act was clearly undermined by that process. It is necessary to amend the Act to preserve the spirit in which it was first passed into law and prevent a recurrence of that unintended anomaly. Unfortunately, the Government have set their face against any such amendment. They have said that it would be unnecessary, as the circumstances of the docks dispute were exceptional and unlikely to be repeated. They said that to amend the Act would be an over-reaction. That was not the opinion of many people in the other place, particularly the noble and learned Lord Donaldson, the Master of the Rolls. No


one would imagine Lord Donaldson to be a defender of trade union rights—he is the last person one would expect to be so.
Lord Donaldson described the Government's attitude when they said that to amend the Act would be an over-reaction as
a triumph of hope over all experience.
He continued that his experience as a practising lawyer and judge was
where there is sufficient money at stake"—
that is interesting in itself—
one or other of the parties will not hesitate to take legal proceedings purely with a view to achieving delay."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 December 1989; Vol. 513, c. 947.]
How right Lord Donaldson was to say that. He also said that the losers in such a case would be those people whose court proceedings would have to be rescheduled to accommodate the new proceedings as soon as possible. He added that the 28-day rule places a heavy burden on the legal process because of its inflexibility.
The noble and learned Lord made an important point when he said that, having seen the example of the port disputes last year, other employers will be tempted to use the law as a delaying mechanism. Rules should be made as soon as possible to pre-empt that possibility.
The Master of the Rolls was concerned about the law and how it affects the courts, but he was equally concerned to say that trade unions could be adversely affected because there was no doubt that other unscrupulous employers would follow the example set by the port employers.
The 1984 Act has created another major imbalance in industrial relations. The scales are again weighted against trade unions which are placed at a severe disadvantage. First, unions and then members have to foot the considerable bill for re-running the ballot. Trade unions do not have unlimited funds and, as well as the cost of the ballot, postal, administrative and other charges have to be taken into account.
Secondly, unions which have industrial action delayed by court proceedings could find that their campaign was losing momentum. That could cause frustration and

pressure from members for industrial action. If there has been an overwhelming majority in favour of industrial action at the earliest opportunity, members will become frustrated at having to await the outcome of further negotiations. Obviously, that could lead to unofficial action, and I hardly think that that was what the Government had in mind for the Employment Act 1984.
In spite of Government opposition to the amendment, when it was debated in the other place it was overwhelmingly supported by members of all parties. The only people who are dragging their feet over this extremely sensible amendment are the Government. Why are they doing that? Perhaps they think that, if they make a union have another ballot, its members will be put off and the union will lose support.
However, that did not happen in the docks dispute. In the first ballot called in 1989, 74–3 per cent. of union members were in favour of industrial action and 25–7 per cent. were against it. The turnout was 90 per cent. If we could achieve such a turnout in a general election, we would think that democracy had returned to Britain. In spite of the delay, the second ballot, which was held on 7 July, showed that 74.2 per cent. of union members were in favour of industrial action and 25.8 per cent. were not, and the turnout had gone up. Such a sensible Bill should be accepted without delay.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Robert Parry, Mr. George J. Buckley, Mr. Mike Carr, Mr. Stan Crowther, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Roland Boyes and Mr. Jim Callaghan.

TRADE UNION ACT 1984 (AMENDMENT) (No. 2)

Mr. Doug Hoyle accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Trade Union Act 1984 by extending by any time taken up by court proceedings the four week period in which a ballot must be implemented by a trade union: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 July and to be printed. [Bill 181].

Arts and Heritage

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]

[Relevant document: European Community Document No. 10331/89 on protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value: needs arising from the abolition of frontiers in 1992.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Because of the large number of hon. Members who wish to speak, Mr. Speaker intends to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I welcome this opportunity to open the debate on the arts and heritage. I hope that the debate will proceed in a slightly more civilised fashion than some debates in the House in recent times. After all, we are debating civilised subjects.
The House has debated the arts every year since I became Minister for the Arts in 1985. This is the fourth year running that we have debated the subject in Government time. That shows the importance that the Government attach to the arts and heritage, seeing them as fundamental to ensuring a higher quality of life for all our people.
I have been Minister for the Arts for five years. This is a useful opportunity to review our achievements. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside will cover heritage matters in his winding-up speech. We have spent unprecedented amounts of taxpayers' money on the arts—an increase of some 48 per cent. in real terms, including central abolition money, since 1979. In real terms the Arts Council's grant is worth three times what it was 20 years ago. The Government are committed to a 24 per cent. increase in the arts budget over the next three years. A major symbol of our commitment is the building of the new British library at St. Pancras. Last month I announced plans for its completion. This magnificent building is the largest publicly-funded cultural construction to be built in this country this century and, indeed, since the building of the great museums and galleries of the 19th century. It will be one of the world's greatest treasure houses of the humanities and sciences.
For the first time, we are providing, at a cost of £450 million, a specific, purpose-built home for the library. That building will meet the library's key requirements, and provide a better service to the public. It will bring together under one roof the majority of the library's reference collections, which now occupy 19 buildings around London. For the first time they will be in a controlled, pollution-free environment, which is essential for their preservation. Included in the design is a stunning new setting for George III's King's library. The first phase of the building will be fully in use by the middle of 1993, and the whole building should be ready for occupation by the British library in 1996.
The Government are showing this same commitment throughout the country. Some £24 million of public money is being spent on a major extension to the National museum of Wales. In 1992 a similarly major new extension to the National museums of Scotland in Edinburgh will begin. The Government will pay £30 million towards that project, covering the construction costs.
The Government also have a broader duty to create a climate in which all arts can flourish and develop freely with a combination of public and private sector support. Britain has one of the most vibrant and diverse arts scenes in the world today—a fact that is fully recognised by the millions of tourists who visit our shores.
London remains pre-eminent in theatre with a vast number of plays and shows being performed each evening—probably as many as in any city in the world. Much of what is available succeeds without any public subsidy. Audiences in the west end last year reached a record 11 million and box office income exceeded £150 million, giving a major boost to the economy.
The public and private sectors can also complement each other. Both the Royal Shakespeare company and the Royal National theatre have transferred productions of the highest quality to the west end. The role of the private sector is not, of course, confined to the west end. One of the most exciting companies to emerge in recent years has been Kenneth Branagh's Renaissance theatre company, which has toured world-wide without any Government support. Close to my own constituency is the Chichester festival theatre, which has been consistently successful and has transferred a large number of its productions to the west end, again without the need for public subsidy. A little further up the road is Glyndebourne, which remains one of the world's great opera festivals and an international centre of artistic excellence

Mr. Robert Banks: As to sponsorship, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Harrogate festival has, for the second year running, won an award in the business sponsorship scheme? With the support of Leeds Permanent building society and a number of others, the festival is now able to mount a programme costing in excess of £250,000, whereas not so many years ago it spent only £100,000. In 1988, the festival received a sponsorship of about £44,000, which was good, but by 1989 it had risen to £58,000. This year, the figure is £81,000. Is that not a good example of what the Government have done in encouraging sponsorship?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to Harrogate's achievement. In the past five years, the number of festivals in this country has doubled. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recording also the value of the business sponsorship incentive scheme, which encourages first-time sponsors. It is good to note that it has succeeded in helping the Harrogate festival to expand.
London leads the way as one of the great cultural capitals of the world. In June, we saw the opening of the new galleries of the Courtauld Institute in the beautiful neo-classical setting of Somerset house—achieved almost entirely with private sector funds. We have had, too, the rehang of the Tate and the new Clore gallery. We welcome the great generosity of Herr Berggruen in loaning 72 works from his outstanding private collection to the National gallery for five years from this autumn, and we look forward to the extension of the gallery with the new Sainsbury wing next spring.
In addition, the Royal Academy has major plans for an extension of its space. In the words of the chairman of the trustees of the National gallery, Lord Rothschild,
London is becoming the paintings capital of the world.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask the Minister about the natural history museum? Seventy two per cent.
of the extra 16.5 per cent. that the Prime Minister says has been given to that museum was for repairs to the Waterhouse building, and 28 per cent. was accounted for by faulty calculations on estimates, leaving 0 per cent. for scientific equipment, the extension of the collections, and field work and scientific expeditions. Will the Minister reflect on his scientific responsibilities?

Mr. Luce: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in that subject. The other day, he had an extremely important and effective Adjournment debate, which I greatly valued, and I gave an undertaking that I would hold a meeting with the museum's chairman, Sir Walter Bodmer, and its director, Dr. Neil Chalmers. The meeting is planned to be held shortly, when we will discuss the museum's problems. As the hon. Gentleman knows. Sir John Fairclough, chief scientific adviser to the Government, is also taking an interest. I take it from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he is concerned about the natural history museum's contribution to this country's wider science base. I fully take that on board and I will discuss it with the chairman and director of the museum.
Artistic flowering is not confined to London. We now see an economic renaissance in many of our great towns and cities, and the arts have played a leading role in that. They not only bring back life and vitality to the inner city but act as a tangible illustration of civic pride. I acknowledge the active role of many local authorities in support of the arts.
Those features have been prominently displayed this year in Glasgow. No other European city of culture has seized its opportunities with greater energy, imagination and pride. I knew when I selected Glasgow from all the other British cities seeking that accolade that it would rise to the challenge. It has done so magnificently. The range and number of arts events on offer to the 6 million expected visitors is quite staggering. A century ago, Glasgow was a byword for civic pride and private patronage. Many of its magnificent public buildings and galleries were constructed then. Now we see another urban renaissance, which owes a great deal to Glasgow's recognition of the crucial importance that the arts can play in improving the quality of life, enhancing the identity of a great city, and contributing to its economic strength.

Mr. Tony Banks: I agree entirely with the Minister that the city of Glasgow and its council deserve all the congratulations that the House can offer for the work that they have done in becoming the cultural capital of Europe. When the Minister pays such fulsome tributes, does he contemplate the spending pattern of a local authority such as Glasgow, given all the pressures that are placed on it in respect of housing, social services and education? Does the Minister tell the Secretary of State for the Environment that when he goes round capping English local authorities he should bear in mind the great contribution that they make to arts funding? Does the Minister have such discussions with his Cabinet colleagues?

Mr. Luce: Of course I praise Glasgow for the role that it has played in European cultural city year, but I praise also the role of the private sector, which went into partnership with that authority in a very effective exercise to regenerate the city. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not touch on that aspect. The pattern for other local authorities around the country is very varied. It is entirely

for them to decide how much they are prepared to devote to the arts in their areas, and I am sure that it is right to leave them that freedom.

Mr. Conal Gregory: For many years, York has contributed through its local council, unfortunately, only £2,000 towards the purchase of new paintings, which would go nowhere at all without the national art collections fund and other funds. My right hon. Friend rightly stated that difficulties exist, but will he stress to the institutions concerned the importance of making available the national treasures held in their reserve collections? At present, they are treasures of the night watchman—beloved only of night attendants and specialist curators. Three quarters of our great arts heritage is never seen but is hidden from view. It could provide centrepieces for banks, schools and building societies, so that culture could be spread more widely and not remain the province of a few.

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a persistent interest in the arts. Art flourishes in many forms in the city that he represents. I take his point that many of our national treasures are kept in vaults, but we should not underestimate the number of art objects now on public display and the extra space available for that purpose. There are also travelling exhibitions which allow the public around the country to see more of our art treasures.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Luce: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed as I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
Birmingham is another city which has established an international reputation for the quality of its arts programme. Under the leadership of Simon Rattle, the city of Birmingham symphony orchestra has emerged as one of the world's great orchestras, and it will soon be taking up residence in a purpose-built concert hall as part of the city's new convention centre. Preparations are also complete for the transfer of the Sadler's Wells Royal ballet to the Birmingham Hippodrome, and last month it was announced that the D'Oyly Carte opera company would take up residence at Birmingham's Alexandra theatre.
I could give many other examples. Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester, Bradford, and many other cities have shown how the arts can be used to spearhead an economic revival as well as to improve the quality of life for their inhabitants. They also demonstrate how partnerships between central and local government, and between the public and private sectors, can be developed for the benefit of all.
That diversity of support is ensuring, too, that the best of our arts are available to more and more people. We see that happening around the country—from the doubling of festivals in five years to the activities of touring companies such as Opera North, Welsh National Opera and the Northern ballet, with ever-increasing audiences, to the great growth in the number of museums and the regional expansion of our national institutions.
All of that progress owes much to the increasing self-reliance and prudent and imaginative management now being exercised by arts organisations. Government policies have helped. Three-year funding enables


organisations to plan much more concisely. My various incentive funding schemes are producing excellent results. The awards that the Arts Council has already made under its scheme are expected to generate an additional £27 million for the arts over the next three years—£3 for every £1 of taxpayers' investment. That is a remarkable achievement and a tribute not only to the arts organisations themselves but to those who have worked with them to improve their management and marketing skills. I was pleased to learn that last year 71 per cent. of the awards were won by companies outside London, most of which were not funded directly by the Arts Council.
The business sponsorship incentive scheme, which we introduced in 1984, has been a major stimulus to the encouragement of sponsorship of the arts. On public expenditure of more than £10 million, it has brought more than £32 million of new money to the arts. As important, it has introduced almost
1,500 new sponsors to the arts. The Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts is running the scheme for us and has played a valuable part in alerting potential sponsors to the benefits of associating themselves with artistic success. The co-operation between business and the arts has brought nothing but good.
The arts in this country have benefited not only from greater business involvement, but from private giving. In his Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the introduction of gift aid. That new form of tax relief, which comes into force on 1 October, will, I believe, have a major impact on support for the arts and heritage in this country. It will apply to both personal and corporate gifts over a huge range from £600 to £5 million. Taken with the existing arrangements for tax relief on payroll giving, up to an annual limit of £600, and for convenanting charitable donations, it provides a tax incentive for gifts to the arts, both great and small. Everything needs to be done to encourage the culture of giving in this country.
The underlying strengths of the economy, and the encouragement that the Government have given to entrepreneurs and investors, have benefited the arts as much as in any other area. The Government remain committed to maintaining the value of their support for the arts, but they also believe that the private sector has a vital role to play. Creativity is not the preserve of the subsidised arts. The co-existence of healthy public and private sectors in the arts means more opportunity for the artist and more choice for the consumer. That diversity of support gives the arts in Britain a vitality equal to any in the world.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said. The Government have established a near impeccable record. I thank him for his kind words about Glyndebourne, which is in my constituency. There is a special category of support for the arts which appears to be a Government responsibility—the fabric of buildings in Government ownership. I know that the Minister has had talks with Mr. Peter Palumbo, so perhaps he will say a few words about that.

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a keen interest in the arts, and has done for a long time. Perhaps he will allow me to develop my speech as I propose shortly to deal with the fabric question.

I have sought to portray many of the positive developments in the arts world today. There will always be practical problems to deal with in a pragmatic way. I do not pretend that everything in the garden is lovely. Currently, those problems include, for example, the pressures of inflation—to which the Government are giving great priority, the problems of balancing the allocation of resources between the national companies and other arts organisations, the need to retain and enhance the best scholarship while making it more accessible, the problem of theatre deficits, and the freezing of purchase grants for the national museums and galleries.
There are problems, but many of them are the problems of expansion and success. However, there appears to be a group of people in this country who have, or seem to have, a vested interest in failure. They always want to emphasise how the arts are failing. All is crisis and Armageddon. I never know where the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) stands. He seems to have blown hot and cold in the past months and years. On occasion, he has been generous enough to congratulate me on my arts budgets, and it would be churlish not to mention that. However, whenever we debate any arts topic, he talks repeatedly of crisis. He did so again only this week at Question Time. When the hon. Gentleman is in that mood, he reminds me of A. A. Milne's Eeyore, exuding gloom wherever he goes. I hope that he will be a little more balanced in his presentation today.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman one thing—it is not possible to fund the arts or anything else without a sound, healthy economy, and no Labour Government have succeeded in achieving that. In the recent Labour document, "Looking to the future", I found a section referring to arts and leisure. I looked for vision, but found none because there is no vision there. It is sterile. There is nothing which holds out great prospects for the future of the arts. If in the category of a school assessment examination, it would rate very low, and we know why—because, on the previous Labour Government's economic record, Labour could not begin to fund and support the arts as we are doing. The document lacks credibility.
I want to touch on one or two other major areas of interest which will concern us in the next few years. First, I shall respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) about the fabric of our institutions. I shall come to Mr. Palumbo's ideas in a moment. I recognise that constant work is required to maintain what are, in most cases, magnificant buildings which house our national collections. One of my major ambitions is to bring those museum and gallery buildings into tip-top condition by the end of the decade. I made my intentions clear in a speech in York last September. In the current year, I am providing some £57 million for building works at the national museums and galleries. Over the next three years, the total Government resources provided for building works is more than £180 million and should enable further progress to be made in improving those buildings. That is a substantial addition of taxpayers' money which will enable us to deal with the fabric of museums and galleries.
I was especially delighted to launch the museums and galleries improvement in March. That new initiative was made possible through the generosity of the Wolfson charities with matching funds from the Government. It will make available a further £12 million over the next three years towards urgent refurbishment and renovation


work in United Kingdom museums and galleries, both national and local. Meanwhile, a substantial amount of refurbishment work in our national institutions is already in hand.

Mr. Mark Fisher: What proportion of the fabric needs to which the right hon. Gentleman referred will be met by his £180 million over the next three years? He keeps on refusing a thoroughly reasonable request from Opposition Members—repeated by Mr. Peter Palumbo, I am glad to say—to have a national audit so that everyone can assess the needs over the next 10 years. We can then appreciate how adequate, or not so adequate, that £180 million will be in addressing those needs. Why does the Minister not have an audit? It would be so sensible and reasonable.

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman must surely realise that the way we work with the national museums and galleries—it is on that point that I am answering the debate—is through corporate strategies which project three to five years' ahead for each museum and gallery. From that, we establish their needs and requirements for the fabric. I negotiate with my colleagues in the Treasury for a three-year agreement, which is an innovation by the Government. I have persuaded my colleagues to give substantial additional money over the next three years. My undertaking, my belief and my ambition is that by the end of the decade we can get the fabric of all those museums and galleries in good shape. That shows that we are already dealing with the fabric problem. The Queen's house at Greenwich has been refurbished at a cost of £5 million, the imperial war museum has been redeveloped at a cost of £12 million, the national portrait gallery is being extended and redeveloped further, and the Sir John Soanes museum is dealing with its fabric with the help of the Government and the MEPC.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: All hon. Members must welcome that expenditure on the fabric of so much of our museums and art galleries. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made an important point. Unless we have a programme, we cannot assess to what extent we can deal with the long period of decay and disrepair that has been allowed to continue. What about the actual contents? The Public Accounts Committee called for an inventory control. We do not know how much there is in the British museum. We must first find out what is there, then value it, and then assess what can be done to keep it in a proper state of repair. If we do not know what we have, we do not know what needs to be done.

Mr. Luce: I appreciate that point. I also appreciate the Public Accounts Committee's work on this and I have noted the Committee's views. We are talking about the basic structure and fabric of these institutions. The corporate strategies developed in the 1980s for these institutions identified the special needs of their fabric. I shall find out whether I can help the House further on the overall requirements of these institutions as a result of the corporate strategies—looking well ahead, not just at the three-year period.
Last year, Mr. Peter Palumbo, chairman of the Arts Council, put some interesting ideas to the Government for restoring the fabric of historic theatres, museums and galleries, as well as cathedrals, by the turn of the century.
As I have said, I have taken a lead on this matter with museums and galleries. The Arts Council is developing some ideas on theatre refurbishment. I stress the fact that the Theatres Trust is carrying out an assessment of the refurbishments requirement of theatres. In dealing with the fabric, we must identify needs and priorities, but it is for each Department to deal with the matter as it thinks best. I am grateful to Mr. Palumbo for his strong and imaginative interest.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: rose—

Mr. Luce: I am in the hands of the House. Many hon. Members want to speak and I wish to touch on other matters. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
On 13 March, I announced to the House a major restructuring of arts funding in England—the first such reorganisation since the Arts Council was established after the war. The main changes are the decentralisation of grant-giving responsibilities from the Arts Council to a smaller number of regional arts boards and greater accountability—I stress this point—by the boards for their spending of public money. This will result in a simpler, clearer system of arts funding and give better value for money to the taxpayer.
I appointed Mr. Timothy Mason, the retiring director of the Scottish Arts Council, to manage the reforms and I established a steering group to advise on their implementation. Good progress has been made and I will shortly be giving fuller details of Mr. Mason's proposals for implementing the package.
Inevitably, the changes have given rise to some concerns. One has been that the Arts Council would be left without a role. I can assure the House that the Government remain firmly committed to a strong and effective Arts Council and that the changes in prospect will not diminish its role or status. In future, while retaining the direct funding of appropriate clients, it will operate at a more strategic level, setting national priorities for the arts, and ensuring that its objectives are met through a system of joint planning and budgeting. The new system will also free the Arts Council from much of its burden of day-to-day administration to concentrate on addressing the major issues facing the arts in the 1990s and beyond. Far from weakening the Arts Council, the changes that I have announced will give it a clearer and sharper focus.
Another concern has been that devolution of clients will threaten standards of excellence. The arrangements that I have already described, under which the Arts Council will hold the regions to account for achieving its objectives, will ensure that this does not happen. I have every confidence in the ability of the new regional arts boards to raise their sights and rise to the challenge of the new funding arrangements. At the same time, however, I have made it clear that devolution of clients will not take place until the necessary systems and structures are in place and that I am satisfied that they will enhance and maintain excellence in the arts.
I share responsibility for the film industry with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs. All three of us were present at the seminar, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently chaired, to


consider how the British film industry might best respond to the new challenges and opportunities in Europe. The seminar produced a number of important initiatives, including a new fund of £5 million over the next three years to help our industry get into European co-production and £150,000 for the European film awards, which will be presented in Glasgow later this year. As important, two working parties are being set up. One, which will be industry led, will look at the tax structure for film production in this country. The other, chaired by the Department of Trade and Industry, will consider ways in which the structural problems of the industry can be addressed. In addition, we shall be looking for ways to build on the European Communities MEDIA programme to strengthen our industry's position in Europe by co-operation between member states.
The protection of our nation's heritage is a primary concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and myself and one which we jointly address as a priority. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside will refer to matters for which the Department of the Environment is broadly responsible. I shall deal with those that are my responsibility.

Mr. John Lee: I am sure that the House will acknowledge my right hon. Friend's great success with his present portfolio. In what may be his final speech in this ministerial role [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say that in the nicest way—would he care to give the House his views on whether it makes sense to have the arts, tourism and the heritage in separate Ministries, or whether there is a case for considering amalgamating the three in one Ministry

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trying to settle my future. The responsibilities of the various Departments is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Throughout the 1980s and beyond, we have had a totally separate Office of Arts and Libraries which deals with these matters, and that is a sensible way to proceed.
There is one important problem to address concerning the export of works of art—the phenomenal rise in the prices of works of art and antiques. In the past decade, the Sotheby's index has risen by an aggregate of 375 per cent. and in the past five years by 150 per cent. In these circumstances, it is not possible for the taxpayer to produce all the funds that we need to save the heritage. How, therefore, do we deal with this problem? I will begin by mentioning the range of useful measures that we have to preserve our heritage.
There is the national heritage memorial fund, established by the Government in 1980, which to date has spent over £108 million of taxpayers' money. There is a range of taxation incentives. In 1985, the Government announced the availability of approximately an extra £10 million per annum for the acceptance-in-lieu scheme. That announcement, together with additional incentives, such as the waiving of interest charges on AIL items, has encouraged the scheme to expand to the extent of last year's record expenditure when works of art were accepted in lieu of more than £11.5 million tax.
The tax incentives which encourage individuals to sell heritage items to our national museums and galleries by

means of private treaty sale are also well used and are proving extremely valuable. Since 1985, objects with a market value of more than £50 million have been purchased at a cost to our national institutions of a little over 50 per cent. of that figure.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister explain why the purchase grants of the national museums have been frozen since 1985?

Mr. Luce: As I explained before the hon. Gentleman leapt up, I accepted that that was one of the issues that we faced in the arts world. A conscious decision was taken by my predecessor and by me. The directors and chairmen of the national museums and galleries all said in discussions that, as a priority, they would rather deal with the issue of the fabric of those institutions before dealing with the problem of purchase grants. I do not deny for one moment that there is pressure on museums and galleries and on purchase grants, but there is a substantial range of other mechanisms for preserving our heritage.
We face a dilemma because of the prices of works of art and the pressure for taxpayers' money. That is why we as a Government must explore every avenue to facilitate the preservation of the most important part of our heritage. It is against that background that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 4 May that in future he would take the existence of private offers—whether or not there were conditions attached—into account when considering whether to grant an export licence. I was fully consulted about that new policy, which was developed because we believe that an injection of private funds will assist in providing a balanced and reasonable system for retaining the most important items of our cultural heritage in this country. Retention has always been the prime consideration, and that will continue.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have read Sir Nicholas Goodison's letter in The Times today. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of agreement with the point of view expressed by Sir Nicholas and that using the export licence mechanism to keep works of art in this country while not making them available to be seen by the public is a mistake?

Mr. Luce: If my right hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall place emphasis on one aspect which I hope will help him.
There are several misconceptions about the change in policy. The owner, not the Government, decides whether to accept an offer, and he has always been free to accept an offer from anyone—museums, galleries or private individuals. The result of the policy change is to enable private offers to play a role in the Waverley system at a time of ever-increasing prices of works of art.
I am obviously keen that the public should have access to important heritage items, and I wish to encourage suitable arrangements. The extent to which a private offer involves an arrangement enabling the public to have access could be an important factor in my advice to my right hon. Friend, but even where minimal or no public access is provided we shall wish to take the existence of that offer, and the owner's refusal to accept it, into account when


deciding whether to grant an export licence. The main purpose of the controls is to retain important items in this country.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Luce: Will my hon. Friend bear with me? I am anxious that hon. Members should have a chance to speak.
The creation of the single market in 1992 is important for our heritage. The Waverley system for identifying pre-eminent works of art, the export of which should be deferred to allow time for funds to be raised to keep them in this country, has served us well. I believe that it strikes a good balance between preserving our heritage, respecting the rights of private owners and the needs of the market. Nevertheless, the position will be rather different after 1992, when routine customs checks at internal EC frontiers will end. The implications need careful thought, and I shall want to consult widely all those concerned before deciding whether underpinning of the existing system is needed to respond to the changed circumstances of the single market.
Consultation with heritage parties is important. I have therefore decided on a two-pronged approach. From time to time, I intend to invite senior people from the art trade and the heritage world for a round table discussion. In addition, I shall set up a consultative group to consider the United Kingdom's position post-1992. That will be composed of representatives from all sides—trade, heritage and museums—and will be selected from the membership of the reviewing committee's advisory council.
I have mentioned several practical issues which affect our policies in the 1990s. I want to end by reminding the House of the cardinal principles that the Government pursue to encourage the arts. First, there is the principle of freedom. It is no accident that courageous artists have led the way in the liberation of eastern Europe. Creative art can flourish only in a fully free country. Freedom of speech and expression are at the heart of democracy, and their preservation guards the health of the arts. When people stop having new ideas, the arts die. We must not let our veneration for the past cloud our acceptance of the art of today and tomorrow.
Secondly, we must preserve and encourage the excellence of the arts, not merely the higher level professional excellence although that sets the tone for the rest, but excellence at every level in every art form throughout the country. We must encourage people to enjoy the arts through participation as well as appreciation. I am in discussion with various television channels with a view to having a televised day of celebration of the arts throughout Britain so that a vast number of people can see for themselves the richness and diversity of the arts. I very much hope that one of the channels will implement that idea.
Thirdly, we must ensure that the best in our arts is available and accessible to all, whatever their background and wherever they live. Anyone has the potential to enjoy art—the music of Beethoven or Britten, a painting by Constable or Howard Hodgkin, a play by Shakespeare or Ayckbourn, the craftsmanship of Henry Moore, an opera by Verdi or Mozart, jazz from New Orleans, or simply by taking up the paintbrush, camera or craftsman's tools.
My ambition, and that of the Government, is to create the climate to enable that potential to be fulfilled, thus helping to enrich the lives of millions more people.

Mr. Mark Fisher: The Minister spoke for almost 40 minutes and the House will have noticed that the longer he did so the deeper he dug himself into the problems that he identified and the weaknesses in the Government's policy.
The House, and everyone in the arts world, recognises that the Minister is a very nice man, and he is well liked, but the Government's record on the arts is so poor, and their credibility so slight, that his speech was nothing but an embarrassment. Conservative Members need not take my word for it, because perhaps they make the point more effectively than I do. The Minister will recall that last week the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) asked the Prime Minister
why the Conservative party is still regarded as philistine".—[Official Report, 26 June 1990; Vol. 175, c. 181.]
She could not answer.
The Minister will have read the remarks of the chairman of the Arts Council, Mr. Peter Palumbo:
The problem is that the great buildings of our country have been neglected"—
neglected by the Government.

Mr. Michael Colvin: If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to be in the Chamber on that day, he would know that the question was directed not to the Prime Minister but to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Fisher: Come on!

Mr. Colvin: That is not the point. Because the hon. Gentleman was not present and did not pay attention, he got the reference wrong. I asked why, when the Government have increased spending by almost 50 per cent. in real terms since taking office, and have announced a three-year rolling programme with an increase of 24 per cent., they are still perceived as philistine. That perception is wrong, and that may be the reason why the hon. Gentleman's perception is wrong.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I heard the deputy Prime Minister answer the question. He could not explain why the Conservative party is regarded as philistine, because he knows that it is true. However, I acknowledge that he paid a fulsome tribute to the personal characteristics of the Minister and said that he would like him in his Cabinet.
The Minister will have noticed the comments made last week by the deputy secretary-general of the Arts Council, Mr. Anthony Everitt:
The National Theatre itself is visibly leaking and needs to be repaired already.
Perhaps the Minister will digest those realities and recognise that all is not well with the arts.
Normally, the Minister's speech is a catalogue of complacency, but today, for the first time, he began to recognise the problems of inflation and the freezing of purchase grants, although rather disingenuously—God knows why—he attributed those to the problems of expansion and success. The directors of our great national galleries do not feel that they are suffering from expansion


and success as a result of Government policy, but at least, for the first time, the Minister acknowledged that there are problems, which is an improvement.
I join the Minister in acknowledging that the arts are flourishing and in paying tribute to arts organisations, regional arts associations, local authorities, the private sector, sponsors such as BP and others and the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts. I share his appreciation of those organisations, but he will have noted that the Government are noticeably absent from that list of contributors to the health of the arts. Arts organisations in this country are strong despite the Government, not because of them.
The Minister is doing little for the cities that he referred to—Glasgow and Birmingham. It is a bit of a cheek for him to take credit for choosing Glasgow. He put hardly anything into Glasgow.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: How much will the Labour party give?

Mr. Fisher: If the Parliamentary Private Secretary.will restrain himself, I shall deal with the next Government's policy.
I was glad that the Minister recognised that there are problems, but I must put him right on one or two of his so-called successes. He mentioned, yet again, the expansion of funding, and referred to 48 per cent. The figure always goes up, but he knows that it includes abolition money and the British library. Despite that, 0.27 per cent. of total Government expenditure is spent on the arts. Only one country in Europe—Ireland—spends less. That should please the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), but he will not be satisfied until we are bottom of the league. He will be glad to hear that we are almost bottom and that almost every other country in Europe spends more than us.

Mr. Colvin: I am sorry to have to correct the hon. Gentleman, but surely that increase does not include the additional money for the British library. He said that it did.

Mr. Fisher: I think that the Minister said it did.
With the exception of Ireland, we are at the bottom of the league in Europe. The Minister knows very well that, in the next two years, the Arts Council is set to get 4–6 per cent. and 3.8 per cent. respectively. He knows very well that those figures will be well below the rate of inflation.
I have paid tribute to three-year funding in the past, but it is no good giving three-year funding when all that the Arts Council and arts clients can do is plan for cuts and deficits.

Mr. Gregory: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fisher: I should like to make a little more progress. I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
Let us look at some more of the problems to which the Minister did not refer. First, the Education Reform Act 1988 is deterring children from attending theatres and live performances. Secondly, there are the problems of the Royal Shakespeare Company, to which, I note, the Minister did not refer and to which I shall return in a moment. Thirdly, there is the question of actors' PAYE. If the Minister wants to encourage acting skills, he should

not deter and penalise performers. Significantly, in the Finance Bill Committee yesterday the Government voted against our amendment.
On all those issues—

Mr. John Bowis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fisher: No, I must make some progress; I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. [Interruption.] We tabled an amendment yesterday, but unfortunately the Government did not accept it.

Mr. Hanley: Would Labour reverse the provision?

Mr. Fisher: We will introduce such an amendment when we are in government. It is an excellent amendment, which is supported by Equity and the Theatrical Management Association.
On all those issues—the RSC in Particular—the Minister is silent. He has said nothing. Perhaps he will say one or two things in answer to our questions today. Does he believe that the scale of the RSC's activities is about right? If so, is the company adequately funded? If not, how much more does the company need? What will happen next year, when the Government do not give any more to the RSC or the Arts Council? If that happens, the RSC will close not in November but in July. Why is the Minister not talking to the RSC? We had a debate on the RSC on an Opposition motion, but since then the Minister has not met representatives of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Or has he? Has he discussed the matter with the artistic directors?

Mr. Luce: Does the Labour party plan to abolish the arm's-length policy? Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the responsibility for taking such decisions belongs with the Arts Council, which gets a global sum? The council is to get an increase of 22 per cent. in the next three years, and it is for the council to decide. If the Opposition wish to abolish arm's length, they had better tell the House now.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister interprets arm's-length policy in his own way: he does not mind; he says nothing about the problems; they are no concern of his. But the figures are there. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, next year, he will be giving the Arts Council less than the rate of inflation and that that will mean that the RSC will not be able to open for the whole year. This year, the RSC is having to close for four months because it is inadequately funded. The Minister did not take the trouble to say anything about that, and he has not even met the RSC. Labour will not abolish arm's length, but the Royal Shakespeare Company and the arts in general expect a Minister to take an interest in these problems.
The Minister has watched the Royal Shakespeare Company close for four months this year and has said nothing. That is disgraceful. Can the House imagine what would happen if the Comédie Francaise was to close for four months? Would the French Government say, "We don't mind; it is unimportant to us. Who cares?" Of course they would not. They have something called national pride—pride in their culture. This Minister does not seem to mind at all that our greatest theatre—along with the National theatre—is closing.
Let us deal now with the subject of the natural history museum, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member


for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on an Adjournment debate. Does the Minister understand why 100 jobs are to be lost and key scientific areas to close? Does he understand that the natural history museum is trying to save £2 million? Does he really believe that that is desirable? Will he deal with those problems?
Will the Minister consider the question of the British Theatre Association library? He rightly took some credit last year when he acted as midwife for Mr. Robert Holmes a Court's deal for the BTA. He will know that this week that has fallen apart, and the BTA appears to have been left dangling with substantial problems with its lease. Having taken the credit last year, will the Minister now intervene to ensure that that resource, which is vital for our theatrical heritage, is properly funded?
Let me deal finally with Mr. Peter Palumbo's initiative. Is it not rather amateurish—I would say incompetent—of the Minister to say that the museums' three-year plans represent an adequate basis on which to plan? Is he really saying that he will commit further Government money not on the basis of the Government's view but on the basis of each museum's view of its needs? That strikes me as a very lackadaisical view of one's responsibility for public funding. If the Minister is giving money, he ought to know what proportion of the museums' total needs that sum represents. That is an eminently sensible point. Surely the Minister ought to have an audit to establish whether Peter Palumbo's guesstimate of fl billion is accurate and, if it is, to determine how we should address the problems. But the Government refuse to face the facts. They are frightened to find out how bad the situation in the museums is. That does the Minister no credit at all.
Is the Minister awake to such problems? Does he understand them? Does he have an opinion? Unlike his predecessor, Lord Gowrie, who made the extraordinary remark that people would only value library books if they had to pay for them, this Minister is not getting it wrong; he is not getting it at all. He does not seem to understand the problem. The cities are expanding and the chairman of the Arts Council is buzzing with good and exciting ideas. On the other side of the channel, Mr. Jack Lang is galvanising the arts. But our Minister does absolutely nothing. He is a nice, kind, gentle person—

Mr. Tony Banks: No, he isn't.

Mr. Fisher: Yes, he is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no, he isn't."] Oh yes, he is. The problem lies not with the Minister's personality but with his appalling lack of policy and with the fact that he is silent while problems in the arts escalate. The arts world has a right to expect a Minister who speaks up for its interests and says something about these crucial matters.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): Come on.

Mr. Fisher: It is interesting that the Minister for the Environment and Countryside should come to his right hon. Friend's defence. Let us turn our attention to him and look at the Government's record on heritage, which is every bit as bad as their record on the arts—if not worse.
Half a million sites in Britain have been identified as of schedulable quality. How many have the Government scheduled? They have scheduled 12,000, in spite of the monument protection programme, which appears to have had no effect. Landscapes are an important element of our

culture. How many of them have been scheduled? The answer is, not a single one. Only five cities have been designated. English Heritage is underfunded. It is to get an increase of only 1.3 per cent. this year. It has asked for a further £6.4 million. Will it get it? It has not yet had an answer.
The Government place such value on rescue archaeology that they are to allocate the princely sum of £5 million a year for the whole country. Did the Minister do anything when the Icklingham bronzes were illegally exported? Did he look to ratify the 1970 UNESCO treaty which would have allowed us to recover them from the United States? He did not a thing; the Government did not seem to care.
When the Rose theatre and Huggin hill sites were at issue last year, the Minister did nothing. The Manpower Services Commission contribution of £5.5 million was withdrawn from archaeology—it was a sum on which archaeology depended—and employment training will not replace any of it. The Government's "developer pays" policy and their total inertia and lack of interest in archaeology and in our heritage are a national disgrace.

Mr. Gregory: rose—

Mr. Fisher: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because I am sure that he will want to recognise that, if only the Government had a policy, the Queen's hotel site in York—a site of international importance—would have been developed. The Government's lack of care about our archaeological heritage has meant that it is not to be developed.

Mr. Gregory: I note the paucity of Labour Members present. There are twice as many Conservative Members as Labour Members here, and that is a mark of our interest in the arts. Would the hon. Gentleman care to include in his catalogue of so-called disasters the fact that the Labour Government did not take action on any of the problems?
Is it Labour party policy to have a development levy so that archaeological sites, particularly in York—York was the first city to show that archaeology can pay and that people want to visit archaeological sites—can benefit as private enterprise is encouraged to participate with the state sector? I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside in the Chamber, and I am sure that he would like to see the development of such a policy. Are all Labour's policies based on the state sector?

Mr. Fisher: I would willingly welcome private sector money in archaeological developments, but there are many areas in which the developer will not or cannot play a part. The Government's inability to recognise that makes their policy lopsided, because they put all the emphasis on the private sector and do not accept any responsibility themselves.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the role that the National Trust plays in saving landscape and archaeological sites? Is not the National Trust entirely funded by public subscription and is that not the way that we should proceed as we look for more resources for the arts, rather than finding the resources from the taxpayer? We all want better arts facilities, but there are other ways of achieving that end.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Lady will know that the National Trust has, for a long time, been urging the Government to designate and schedule landscapes. It does a remarkable job, but it has no statutory power. If the Government cared about our great landscapes, they could do something about them. We look forward to hearing something from the Minister about what he is going to do for the landscapes.
What is the Minister going to do in his Budget round? What kind of package has he put before Treasury Ministers? What arguments has he been deploying? The Minister missed a golden opportunity today. The House expected some sign of the case that the Minister is going to put to the Treasury. We had hoped for an exciting and convincing case. Had he put a case for the arts today, either on cultural or economic grounds, or both, he would probably have got a good press tomorrow and he would have gained much support around the country. He might then have had a stronger hand when he went to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the summer.
Instead, the Minister said that almost everything is okay. He scored the most monumentally politically naive own goal. When he goes to see the Treasury Ministers, they will refer him to the speech that he has made tonight. They will say to him, "But you said in the House the other day that everything was fine and you were doing so well and being so successful. How on earth can you be asking for more money?" The Minister's performance has been naive. It was not calculated to get money out of the Treasury. We hope that he will get that money, and we will do everything to encourage and help him in that end. However, he has not helped himself today.
Conservative Members are aware that, although funding is important, so are the right policies. I am glad to say that, in his one or two positive comments, the Minister has adopted Labour party policies.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Then why are you condemning my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Fisher: No, I am praising these things. I am delighted about these developments.
For years, we have been urging the devolution of administration, and I am delighted that the Minister has backed that policy at last. We have also been urging that money should be spent on the fabric of buildings. Although the Minister will not accept the audit, he is at least spending the money; again, that is a good Labour party policy that he has adopted.
For years we have been saying that the Minister should do something about the film industry. At long last, the Prime Minister has taken up Labour party policy. I am confident that the recommendations which the two working parties set up by the Prime Minister will produce in three months' time will be similar to the package of proposals that the Labour party has put forward. We hope that the Minister will adopt those recommendations, as they make good common sense.
We also hope that the Minister will be emboldened by that and will recognise that, in adopting Labour party policies, he has gained popularity and has received applause. We welcome that, and hope that it will continue. Perhaps he will then take the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside and press for a full Ministry. It is a disgrace that the Minister is not a full Minister, with his own independent Department. The hon.

Member for Romsey and Waterside made that point at Prime Minister's Question Time last week. The Minister should be fighting for that. It is Labour party policy to have a full Ministry as is the case in every other European country to cover the cultural industries as well as the arts.

Mr. Devlin: As we have that concrete proposal from the Labour party, when the hon. Gentleman gets that wonderful new Ministry, what will its budget be and how much will it spend on the arts?

Mr. Fisher: I am coming to that point.
In his heart of hearts, the Minister knows that he should adopt a policy in which there is a statutory responsibility on all local authorities and an eligibility for rate support grant money. That would lead to a huge expansion of local authority funding in response to the needs of the constituents of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), which are bound to differ from those of the Minister's constituents.

Mr. Devlin: How much will it cost?

Mr. Fisher: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he will understand that I have described a responsive budget. Through the rate support grant mechanism, central Government will match and respond to local government expenditure as happens at the moment in library provision, housing and social services. It will be up to the constituents of the hon. Member for Stockton, South and his local authorities to understand the needs of their area, which no doubt will be different from the needs in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who will be speaking later about heritage. That is the way to expand budgets. Conservative Members must be aware that such a policy would be popular in their areas.

Mr. Devlin: We must be clear about this. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he will consider bids from every local authority and meet them in full, or is he saying that he will allow people to present budgets and he will meet such parts of them as he thinks fit? If that is the case, he must have some idea of the global sum which his new Department will have at its disposal. How much is that?

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand how local government works. There will be a statutory responsibility, rather akin to the statutory responsibility for public libraries. I believe that that will lead to an equality and a development of funding similar to the expansion in the public library service. If the hon. Gentleman considers the expansion in the public library service, he will understand that that statutory responsibility has ensured that there is good public library provision around the country.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: My hon. Friend will recall his successful visit to my constituency and visiting the people working with the SHAPE Up North art link involving people with learning difficulties. My hon. Friend saw those people making a mural, which has just been presented to Wakefield prison college. It is an excellent mural, and we should all be proud of the fact that those people produced such a lovely work of art. Is my hon. Friend aware that, with poll tax capping, that superb community arts scheme, aimed at those people who really


enjoyed producing that mural, could lose some of its local authority funding? Is that not a tragedy? The Labour party would not do that to local communities.

Mr. Fisher: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has mentioned that. The Minister is usually anxious to include a section in his speeches about widening access. I am sorry that he did not take the opportunity today to do that. The case for increased funding for people with disabilities in our society is acute.
For so long the Government failed to respond to the Attenborough report. When they last provided some money, we welcomed the establishment of ADAPT under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). However, that is not enough. The needs of the people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and elsewhere in the country are responded to by SHAPE organisations and art link organisations. The Minister knows that those organisations do a good job and he also knows that they are acutely underfunded.
The next policy which the Minister should be adopting addresses my last point. The Minister will accept that one of the difficulties with funding arts projects for disabled people is that they cross departmental boundaries. That often proves to be a difficulty.
The right hon. Gentleman knows about the British Health Care arts centre in Dundee, which is doing valuable work. There is actually an expansion of the use of designers and artists in making hospital environments interesting places in which people want to get better. The Government are not putting any money into that. One of the problems, I suspect, is the division of responsibilities between the Department of Health and the Minister's Office of Arts and Libraries.
The Labour party's third major policy development, along with a full Ministry and a statutory responsibility on local authorities, would be to tackle the difficult matter of cross-departmental co-operation and joint works. The opportunities for developing the culture of this country and arts provisions are very great indeed, not only in the health sector, in combination with health authorities and the Department of Health, but in the Department of Transport. We could have a London underground system that looked like Stockholm's—it is beautiful—rather than the raggedy, horrible place that it is at the moment. We could back British Rail and the work that Jane Priestland is doing to revive the system, but we are hardly doing anything at all.
We could involve the Department of the Environment in work in parks. We have some of the most beautiful parks around our great cities. We spend £450 million a year mowing the lawns and weeding and planting the flower beds, but we spend almost nothing on activities that go into those parks. With encouragement from the Government, 1 or 2 per cent. of those budgets would transform our parks, as Birmingham did last year, as Battersea does annually, and as happens at Kenwood. Parks could he transformed into exciting cultural centres in our cities. It is a simple thing to do. The Government should be doing it, but they encounter cross-departmental difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman referred to London. He is wrong to say that London is a great cultural capital. It should be. It should be one of the greatest cities in Europe, but, unfortunately, because the Government have abolished

the strategic authority, the Greater London council, there is no planning. To get anything done to develop the river, our canals and parks in London requires so many different authorities and a combination of so many different things that we are not taking a lead. The Minister should ensure that the arts have a key role—an anchor role—in developing London. Unfortunately, that is another matter on which he is silent.
The Minister could talk with his colleagues about design. I know that he does not have direct responsibility for that matter but, through the Crafts Council, he has a strong interest. The Government spend £40,000 a year as a consumer—as a commissioner—of goods and services. They could use that economic clout to make sure that British design is a priority and that the standards of design through that expenditure are setting standards that the rest of British industry should be following. Conservative Members know that that is the case, but design is not a priority of the Government. Although we haw some brilliant designers, we are being left behind. The Government have enormous potential to set a lead and a standard and, as the Labour Government will do, say that the 1990s should be a decade of British design. The Minister should take that point on board.

Miss Emma Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman referred most courteously to ADAPT, and I am grateful for his comment. He might like to know that, on the ADAPT board, there are architects who are bringing out codes of best practice for adapting arts venues and public libraries in the most acceptable visual way, as well as making them acceptable for the disabled and other people with handicaps, such as the elderly and those with young babies in pushchairs. We are working very hard on making design acceptable, which is not easy when we are often dealing with listed buildings.

Mr. Fisher: I am delighted to join the hon. Lady in her tribute to her working party, its work and its recognition that design actually helps to solve problems and often saves money. The Government could and should adopt the "British design first" policy. That would go a long way not only to solving our economic problems in the 1990s but to making this a more attractive and civilised society in which to live.
Conservative Members wanted some Labour party policy for the Government to pick up and run with. They have three things—a Ministry, statutory responsibility, and a cross-departmental cultural policy. Those three things together would transform matters. The Minister can have them. We should be delighted if the Minister had the wit and ingenuity to pick them up. There are plenty more good ideas where they came from the next Labour Government—but let the right hon. Gentleman make a start with those.
We are glad that the Government have started to implement Labour party policy. We hope that they will continue in the short time that they have left. It will mark the changeover to the Ministry and to a decade in which British culture actually begins to count for something, we can begin to be proud of our artists, and audiences cart get a square deal. That will be a good transition. The country has a right to expect a better and more vigorous cultural policy than it is getting from the Government. The next Labour Government will certainly give the country that cultural policy.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The trouble with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is that he is never quite sure whether he is rehearsing "King Lear" or "Twelfth Night". He is not very good at being Mr. Nasty. Many Conservative Members knew and revered his father and had great affection for him. The hon. Gentleman inherits an abundant measure of his father's charm, but not his father's good sense. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman spends so much time trying to be Mr. Nasty and trying to rubbish my right hon. Friend the Minister who has performed a signal service to the arts for five years. When one considers his record objectively, my right hon. Friend will be remembered as an extremely fine Minister for the Arts.
I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) did not have some inside information. I sincerely hope also that it was not my right hon. Friend's last speech as Minister for the Arts. I should love his role to be expanded.
My first point takes up a comment that has already been made in an intervention and by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. If we were honest about the matter, we would recognise that no Government since the war have done well enough for the arts. No Government have given sufficient priority to the arts and our heritage. The Government have made a significant advance, and I have paid tribute to that on many occasions. I refer to the foundation of the national heritage memorial fund, the creation of English Heritage, as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England is generally known, what has been done at the Tate gallery and at the Tate of the north. I could go on, but I shall not. The achievements are many and considerable, but no Government have done as much as they should have done.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cormack: I shall give way, but I do not wish to give way too often because many other hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman omits something vital from his tribute to the Minister, and that is the very small amount of money that the Government are giving. Lord Armstrong conveyed to the Select Committee that at least £50 million would be required to set right the fabric of the Victoria and Albert museum alone. No matter how well-intentioned the Minister is, I do not know how in heaven's name that work can be done without the necessary money.

Mr. Cormack: Of course, there is a need for more money. There is a need for a plurality of funding and for a greater central contribution. I do not cross swords with the hon. Gentleman. He served on the Select Committee that I had the honour of chairing for most sittings, when we inquired into the arts way back at the beginning of the 1980s. That Committee made a number of recommendations, but the fundamental recommendation was that there should be one Minister with responsibility for the arts, heritage and tourism matters, and that that Minister should be a member of the Cabinet. That was an all-party recommendation. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central should not claim that that is uniquely Labour party policy.

Mr. Fisher: It is.

Mr. Cormack: I could say just as easily that he pinched it from me. I wrote articles and a book on the matter in the early 1970s when the Labour party was in government, and I urged Labour Prime Ministers to do something about it, but they did not. We can all say, "Me, too." The Labour party has hijacked my policy, and I am delighted that it has. There is now a greater recognition spread across my party—it was given eloquent voice by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) in the House last Thursday—that we need a Ministry that is more all-embracing than the present one. I should love the arts, heritage, tourism, film and broadcasting to be the responsibility of one Minister. That would make sense.
Last week during his question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside referred to 1992 and to the fact that, as our Ministers sit side by side with their European counterparts, a Minister will have more clout not only in the Cabinet and in Government, but within Europe if he has greater responsibilities and a wider remit.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not in the Chamber, so I hope that what I am saying will be reported to her. If she is contemplating a mini-reshuffle this month—some of the newspapers suggest that she is—I hope that she will reward my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts for his splendid service by giving him the place in the Cabinet that he deserves and by giving him those additional responsibilities. My right hon. Friend enjoys a great measure of respect and affection throughout the arts and heritage world. He has considerable experience, built up over five years. He would be a notable first holder of that office. That is something to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should turn her attention. If she does not feel that she can make that sort of administrative change this side of a general election, I hope that both parties will go into the general election committed to that policy—

Mr. Fisher: We will.

Mr. Cormack: I sincerely hope that both parties will do so.
Although one could range far and wide in such a debate, I shall not do so because I do not wish to take up too much time. However, two other things which deserve the House's attention have not received much up to now. There has been only the briefest passing reference in the debate so far to cathedrals. Despite all the problems to which he should be putting his mind, such as the Royal Shakespeare Company, Mr. Peter Palumbo seems intent on empire-building. I am sure that Mr. Palumbo is a man of great distinction, many talents and considerable gifts, but he should remember that he has been appointed chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain which has responsibilities, opportunities and problems enough without his seeking to intrude into areas in which the Arts Council has no experience and no proper role to play.
However, Mr. Palumbo has rightly drawn the public's attention to something that many of us have been talking about for some time. I refer to the fact that our great medieval cathedrals constitute the finest group of buildings in this country. They are buildings of great glory, the flagships of our heritage. They contain some of the finest works of art in the world and are themselves among


our finest works of art. It is nonsense that they comprise the only group of important historic buildings that is not eligible for grants from public funds. Of course, there are historic reasons for that and it is not the fault of either this Government or the previous Labour Government. Indeed, when I and many others over the past 20 years have said, "What about the cathedrals?", the cathedrals themselves have frequently sounded a strong dissenting voice. A number of deans and provosts have been reluctant, thinking that such funding would threaten their autonomy and that it would not be right for them to be beholden in any sense. However, there is now a growing realisation among deans and provosts and all those who care for those great buildings that appeals, which have so often been successful, can no longer be the only answer.
Any country that allowed the spire of Salisbury cathedral to collapse or Wells' west front or Lincoln's west front to crumble into decay could not call itself a civilised country or society. It is important that money from central funds should be available to assist with the upkeep and maintenance of our cathedrals. I am not advocating a French solution. I am not suggesting that the fabric should become the responsibility of the state because I believe that it is important that the Church itself should have some responsibility. Appeals are important—they help to harness local affection, pride and patriotism, and all such good qualities are themselves good things.
Furthermore, I am not against cathedrals that have struggled hard, as Ely has, deciding to charge for admission to those who are going there not to pray, but to look and enjoy. When an all-party Select Committee recommended the consideration of admission charges, I believe that it was suggesting something perfectly reasonable, although I do not believe that it got the figures right. It would, of course, be unthinkable to have a compulsory admission charge at cathedrals on all occasions.
However, the inescapable central fact is that we need to make money available from the centre. The obvious vehicle for organising that is the body that we already have—English Heritage, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. Just as it has a separate committee to look after state aid for churches, it should have a separate committee to look after state aid for cathedrals.
There are those of us present who battled for state aid for churches. When I became a Member of the House in 1970, such aid was not available. I remember introducing a Bill to that effect in 1972. We battled and eventually a Conservative Secretary of State, Lord Rippon as he now is, agreed that that should happen. The implementation fell to a Labour Secretary of State, the late Tony Crosland, who was one of the finest Secretaries of State for the Environment that this country has ever had. That happened on a bipartisan—indeed, on an all-party—basis. I speak as chairman of the all-party heritage group when I say that it is important that when we have got over our bantering across the Floor of the House, which is perfectly natural and good fun, we should all remember that we have fundamental and basic responsibilities for such enduring things, and that those responsibilities transcend petty party differences.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) attended all the sittings of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts which unanimously

reported in 1981. All its recommendations had the support of all members of the Committee, ranging from the very far left to the fairly far right.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: I agree with my hon. Friend about state aid for cathedrals. That is long overdue and much-needed. But does my hon. Friend agree that if state aid is to be given to cathedrals, they should fall within the planning framework? Frequently, ecclesiastical exemptions for planning have meant that cathedrals and churches have gone in for planning abuses that would not be tolerated in secular buildings. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if money is to be given, the Church must give up some of its autonomy over what it does with its buildings?

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend oversimplifies a complicated matter. As one who served on the Faculty Jurisdiction Commission of the Church of England, which wrestled with that point, my answer to my hon. Friend would, in one word, be no. I do not think that there is any need for that because the system of faculties that applies to parish churches provides great safeguards. Until now, the cathedrals have been so autonomous as to have an almost dangerous autonomy, but today's Order Paper contains a Measure relating to the care of cathedrals, which comes from the General Synod, which will mean that the Mappa Mundi affair could not be repeated. Thank goodness, that has now been resolved reasonably satisfactorily and the Mappa is now back in Hereford. There is no longer a problem there, but we do not want deans and chapters being able to get rid of things of priceless worth without paying any regard to anybody. However, in the interests of time and my colleagues, I must not be led too far along that path.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts touched on my next point in his admirable opening speech. Like other hon. Members, I saw the letter from Sir Nicholas Goodison in The Times today. The letter demonstrates the great sense of unease throughout the heritage world at the recent decision of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I might add that if there was one Minister and if that Minister were my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, I do not think that we would have that problem today. However, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has brought into sharp focus the fact that as a result of the extraordinary and almost obscene escalation in the price of works of art, there is a real need for a further review of how we can try to keep necessary things in this country.
In 1981 the Select Committee was fairly prescient and made a number of important recommendations. For instance, it said that the so-called douceur was not enough. That is illustrated by the fact that there are now so few private treaty sales. The Select Committee also said that we should consider something along the lines of the former American system whereby if someone bought a work o f art there could be an element of tax deductibility so long as the ultimate beneficiary was the nation.
In the recent decision over the Three Graces, I do not object to the fact that some private individuals have been allowed to buy the object or at least that their offer has been declared admissible. What worries me is that in return for saying that there can be some public access for 25 years, in effect they have been given a licence to print money. I am not casting any aspersions upon the integrity


of the people concerned. I do not know them and everything that I have heard about them is to their credit, but however saintly and good they may be, the system which enables private individuals, at the behest of the state, to cash in on the system is wrong. I would not mind at all if those gentlemen—I believe they are called the Barclays—kept the Three Graces almost entirely to themselves so long as the ultimate beneficiary was the nation.
That is what happens in the United States. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, nodding so vigorously. That is why there are so many large collections in the United States. Private individuals have bought works of art; they have been allowed an element of tax deductibility; they have enjoyed them, sometimes in the privacy of their own homes and sometimes sharing them, but ultimately those works of art have become the property of the state in which they live and the nation has been enriched immeasurably as a result.

Mr. Tony Banks: I very much agree with what the hon. Member said about the obscene prices being paid at auction these days. As the people who buy works of art—they all seem to be Japanese business men—are incredibly wealthy, what does the hon. Gentleman think about the idea of imposing a levy, a percentage, on the amount they pay that could then be channelled back into the arts to encourage emergent painters, sculptors or musicians? There is something ironic about the fact that a Van Gogh can be sold for £27 million yet the artist died in poverty. We should do something about that. Obviously, we cannot make retrospective payments to painters, but surely we could channel some of the money back into the arts.

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is not at all way out or outlandish and merits some consideration. After all, one could say that the public lending right scheme gives a precedent for doing something along those lines. I would not want to be tempted too far, although there may be some merit in a special sales tax, which I infer is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. However, that does not meet the basic problem.
We have to examine the douceur and the whole business of tax deductibility for private individuals. The nation must be ultimate beneficiary if those private individuals are to enjoy works of art and be allowed a tax concession for so doing, which I do not oppose. But what Sir Nicholas says in his letter is so right and so wise. The issue needs careful examination, whether by the reviewing committee or by a specially constituted committee, and the law which now operates—it is a pre-war law—needs looking at. We need to decide how best to address the problems created by the escalation of values.
There are other matters on which my right hon. Friend should be fighting, and I am sure he is doing that. It is nonsense that the purchase grants remain frozen at 1985 levels and that the national heritage memorial fund, should have almost spent its year's resources by 4 July. That memorial fund, which has been so brilliantly

organised and chaired by Lord Charteris and which has performed a great service to the nation, needs extra resources and it must have them.
The failure of the Labour Government to respond to the challenge of Mentmore, although Mentmore was the catalyst, led to the Select Committee being set up to examine the national land fund from which the national heritage memorial fund was constituted. The capital of the national land fund had been filched by Governments of all parties, and if that sum had been given back, the problems that we are discussing today would not exist. More money is owed to the national heritage memorial fund. I am sure that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who played a notable part in our deliberations in Committee and tabled the amendment that made it the national heritage memorial fund, would agree.
It would be extremely dangerous for the memorial fund to become a clearing house or central purchasing agency for museums. It was not intended as that and it must not be allowed to become so, but it will if we do not consider purchase grants to museums.
There is so much that one could say about the future of our theatre and opera where there are also serious problems, but I shall finish on this note: we have cause for some quiet satisfaction in that the Government whom I am proud to support—I am discriminating and discerning in my support, but I am still proud to support them—have done a great deal over the past 11 years to give a new priority to issues which concern almost all hon. Gentlemen in the Chamber today. However, there is no cause for complacency. My right hon. Friend the Minister said that he is well aware of the problems. We should now look towards the turn of the century and our aim should be that all the great buildings that we inherited from our ancestors are handed on to our successors sound and well restored. Museums should have their contents properly displayed, they should have no leaking roofs and they should have continuing and living collections. Most important of all, let us not forget that if we are concerned about the arts and heritage we are concerned about the living, not the dead. I shall not start quoting Keats, but a true work of art is a joy for ever; it is undying and immortal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) would change his tune if he had been with me in Romania a few weeks ago. I was talking to people who have had to face unimaginable privations, problems and hardships. They told me that without books, culture, art and a link with a European past as well as with other countries in Europe today, they would have had no hope and they would have felt that they had no future. We are dealing with enduring living art and we must not forget that we are also dealing with the encouragement of living artists. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister again, but I urge him never to give up his quest or his endeavour.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has the conservation of our heritage at the forefront of his mind at all times, and I fully support him in that.
Our heritage is the most important aspect of the debate because it was accumulated when, for more than two centuries, Britain was the most powerful and prosperous country in the world. We are not likely to return to that,


so the articles and the buildings that were created at that time—with all the talents that went into their construction—must be passed on undiminished wherever possible.
The Minister for the Arts is to be congratulated, as he has been successful in getting more out of the Treasury than did most of his predecessors. To most Governments and Treasury Ministers, an Arts Minister is just another spender. He is not likely to create money, so he is viewed with a certain amount of antagonism because of the extra money that he is able to acquire. The right hon. Gentleman can make use of a number of assets, however, and I hope that he has learnt how to do so. He represents a civilised approach within the Government, and I am sure that he has been able to press his argument upon the Treasury and to exploit it as fully as possible.
I am also sure that the right hon. Gentleman has emphasised the importance of tourism to this country and the contribution that the arts can make to encouraging tourists. Many people come here not for the weather or the restaurants—good as they are nowadays—but for the theatres and historic buildings. The Minister's work directly contributes to Britain's attractiveness to tourists. I am sure that he has emphasised that aspect, but it could be emphasised still further.
Tourism helps our balance of payments, and although the Government have somewhat derided that idea in the past, given our £20 billion balance of payments deficit perhaps it may now be regarded as more important than it used to be. The money derived from tourism is not offset by large expenditures overseas, as most of the money that tourists spend in this country stays here. When we manufacture goods we have to buy raw materials from abroad, and there is offsetting expenditure, but 90 per cent. or perhaps more of the money from tourism goes to help the balance of payments because it stays in this country. The Minister should use that argument more often.
One could argue that value added tax should not be charged on the arts at all, let alone at a monstrous 15 per cent. When I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury and had responsibility for VAT, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) asked me whether we could abolish VAT on theatres. He knew my views. I studied the matter and went to him with two views: I said that as Financial Secretary to the Treasury one must be aware of the repercussions and problems that would result from abolition; but, as the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, my advice to my right hon. Friend was to abolish VAT on theatre admission. He took the first piece of advice, not the second. I told him, "If you are going to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, for heaven's sake enjoy it, and do something that you will be proud of in later years." VAT at 15 per cent. is absurd, but it is an argument for getting compensating money from the Treasury.
We spend a large amount of money teaching our children about the arts, music and literature, but the expenditure suddenly comes to an end, and there are few subsidies for the arts to compare with the enormous amount spent on teaching children to enjoy the arts. There should not be such an abrupt change.
How should we spend the money, assuming that we have perhaps been able to get more from the Treasury than the Minister has been able to obtain? I am worried about the decay of so many public buildings and their contents. From the first report of the Public Accounts Committee last year we know that, when dealing with the subject of conservation,

The Victoria and Albert Museum accepted frankly that this 'was a national disaster' and agreed that it 'represented lasting and irreparable damage to some of the national heritage.'
The museum went on to say:
On present staffing levels backlog conservation
on the prints and drawings collection alone
was estimated at 200 years.
Whatever the right hon. Gentleman has rightly announced today, it must be compared with the size of the task, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said. If we regard the fact as important that we are merely the holders of these great collections, the least that we can do is to retain them, preserve them and pass them on in as good a condition as they were when we inherited them. That is the task before us.
Then there is the question of the export of works of art. We had the money and a certain amount of good taste and we acquired great collections, which we are proud of. I am against museum charges because they mean that people have to make a special effort to visit a museum, rather than popping in, perhaps to a local one, when they happen to be passing by. If we want to encourage children to visit museums, we should not think only in terms of party visits. How many times did hon. Members go to a museum in a party? No doubt excursions are better organised now, but I never did. Sometimes we went in to get out of the rain, and sometimes out of curiosity, and what we saw remains with us as an abiding memory. For the sake of a few million pounds it is absurd to handle our heritage in such a fashion.
Italy has far more great works of art than many other countries and it does not allow their export. So why do we allow exports? I agree with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South that we should keep the works of art that we possess here. Perhaps we might not see them for 25 years, but they would be here at the end of that period, and we should be able to enjoy them—as would our children's children. We are not likely to be able to spend £30 million to keep painting here again. We must have another mechanism to keep outstanding works of art in this country without this nonsensical rushing round to find some wealthy individual who may be prepared to come up with a scheme to keep them here which would perhaps be to his advantage or give him a certain amount of local credit. That is not the way to handle a national issue of such importance and we must ensure that we keep these great works of art in this country.
No one has mentioned the role of the BBC, which has been one of the greatest civilising influences in our country. It has brought literature and music to millions of people who would not otherwise have been drawn to a concert hall or a theatre. The plays that it has put on have generated enjoyment and understanding. The BBC is one of the main reasons why London has become such a centre for music. In the 1920s, one would have laughed at the idea of London being a world centre for music, but it is today. London has always been a centre for the theatre. Better theatre of an international standard has resulted from the number of people who have learnt to appreciate acting and plays from the BBC. That is one of our advantages. We must retain it.
The Minister has done very well, and I hope that he will not leave his post. Until I came to today's debate, I did not know that that was a possibility. He has worked himself into the job, and he has an unrivalled grasp of the subject.


I am sure that his relationship with the Treasury could not be improved upon by any successor who might be brought in to fill this role.
I would dearly like to see it as a Cabinet role. There was a time when we hoped that it would be—along with other responsibilities, obviously. I wish the Minister well, and ask him to continue the fight, be more vigorous and produce more money to be spent on this important sphere of activity.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Let me warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts on the splendid catalogue of achievements that he set out. He has been outstandingly successful as Arts Minister. On a personal level he is most highly regarded in the arts world. I hope that he will long continue in his present position, as he is doing a first-class job. In saying that, I speak for all the members of the Conservative Parliamentary Arts and Heritage committee, which I have the honour to chair. I, too, take the view that his should be a Cabinet post.
I was astonished that, in a speech that lasted for more than half an hour, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) did not make one reference to our 10 great symphony orchestras, which play such a major part in the cultural life of our nation. I hope that he never becomes Minister for the Arts: that would bode ill for music in this country.
Let me return to what my right hon. Friend the Minister said. What matters most is how the arts enrich and fulfil people's lives in growing numbers. In this, the Government have been far more successful than any other. When I say that the Government have "done more", I mean that they have done more for audiences—the consumers rather than the producers. The producers and the performers are there for the audiences, and not the other way round. This applies to the arts, as to anything else.
What matters most is not the sum in the annual arts budget—we can spend too much time examining financial figures. Although we have a duty to do so—because it is the duty of Parliament to vote money and for the Government to make recommendations to Parliament—the money is only a means to an end. What is important is the number of people who enjoy their perception of works of art or performances. For all that, Government spending on the arts is 48 per cent. up in real terms on what it was 10 years ago. Even if we allow for GLC abolition money, the figure is still 45 per cent. up.

Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman try to explain how it helps audiences when, as a result of Government policies, 31 out of 33 English repertory companies are in deficit?

Mr. Jessel: Repertory companies have nearly always been in deficit, because they perform mostly in small towns and suburban areas. They have always been closer to the

margin than the principal theatres in our main cities—there is nothing new in that—but they are managing to survive.
I was impressed by the reference to Glasgow as the cultural capital of Europe for 1990. I was there in the recess during the last week of May, and was told that the number of people who would attend arts events of all kinds was expected to increase from 6.5 million in 1989 to 10 million in 1990—an increase of about 50 per cent. That is a tremendous achievement; the figure includes performances by some repertory companies. There are now 2,500 museums in Britain, which is double the number of 20 years ago; more people now go to the theatre than attend football matches. About 2.5 million people a year go to classical concerts.
I see my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) in his place. Perhaps I can anticipate what he is about to say on the basis of his comments in previous speeches. He seems to think that all pleasures are of equal value. That is nonsense. We all know it. The obvious excitement and tension, and the emotional and spiritual uplift, from great drama, beautiful music, brilliant painting, strong religious or patriotic feeling—or even the excitement of sporting events such as football matches—has a dimension and a quality totally different from the contentment of a cow or a cabbage. That is what distinguishes human beings from animals. Once we have accepted that those feelings are intrinsically superior to the contentment of a cow or a cabbage, it is a small step to come to the conclusion that some of those things are superior to others.

Mr. Terry Dicks: My hon. Friend has made my point for me. He is saying that we are all different and that we like different types of activities and leisure pursuits, for which we should pay the full amount. At the moment, 24 million people are watching England play West Germany at football. They are not subsidised, as they buy their own television sets. Football is not subsidised, and it is a damn sight more important than the arty-farty people pushing themselves around the Royal Opera House.

Mr. Jessel: We all know that the works of Shakespeare are superior in literary merit to the Order Paper of the House which I have in my hand . Similar analogies can be made about poetry, music, architecture, painting or any of the other arts. If we can get young people into something good, then they have many years ahead of them to get something out of it. So the argument for supporting the arts with public funds is not very different from the argument for using public funds to support education.
My hon. Friend never faces up to the fact that the arts in this country attract substantial numbers of visitors from overseas. Their visits generate spending on hotels, restaurants, shops and internal travel. All those produce profits, a tax yield to the Government, and employment and income for the people who produce services. Therefore, they augment the invisible earnings of this country. That is a point in favour of the arts that my hon. Friend never answers.
There is no doubt that London has a superb range of live arts. As Dr. Johnson said,
When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford.


My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central did not mention orchestras, and we seldom give enough time to discussion of orchestras.
We are apt to discuss the Royal Opera house, the English National Opera, the royal national theatre and the Shakespeare theatre. They all do an excellent job, but when did the House last debate the Royal Philharmonic orchestra, the London symphony orchestra, the London Philharmonic orchestra, the Philharmonia orchestra, the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra, the Halle orchestra, the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic orchestra, the Scottish National orchestra and the many excellent orchestras of the BBC?
The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—theright hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—did mention and praise the BBC; I share his view. I should like especially to praise the BBC for its excellent promenade concert seasons: this year's is about to begin. Many of those orchestras have a high standard of excellence and are of world class. I find the sound of musical instruments playing together as a symphony orchestra at least as good as the sound of a human voice.
Of course it costs more to put on an opera than to put on a symphony concert. It involves the set, the staging and the orchestra, as well as singers. But a good symphony concert is not cheap to put on, and it is not self-evident to me why the subsidy of £15.2 million a year paid to the Covent Garden opera house should be seven or eight times as much as the subsidy which is paid to the four main London orchestras—the Royal Philharmonic orchestra, the London symphony orchestra, the London Philharmonic orchestra and the Philharmonia orchestra. Together, they receive a subsidy of about £2 million a year. The Paris orchestra, in contrast. receives £5.2 million, and theMunich Philharmonic orchestra £7.6 million each year—for only one orchestra in each case.
The underfunding of British orchestras leads to two unsatisfactory results. First, our orchestras are under-rehearsed. That defect is only partially offset by their remarkable standard of sight reading. Secondly, it is diffcult to attract conductors of world class. We are always being told that the opera must have enough money to attract international singers. If so, then orchestras must have enough money with which to attract top conductors. I hope that the chairman of the Arts Council will be invited to reconsider the proportion—only 7 per cent.—of the total Arts Council budget that is now allocated to orchestras.

Mr. Simon Hughes: A wide consensus of view has emerged on many important issues. I add my personal support to the plea that the Minister who is in charge of arts policy should be given a Cabinet post. He should be in charge of an integrated Department. That decision should be made sooner rather than later. I hope that it will be made by the Prime Minister this month. I agree with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Connack) that many people have been arguing for a long time that the Ministry should have greater status. My colleagues have made a similar point in the past. I endorse it. My party has argued for a long time that there should be an arts and culture Ministry,

incorporating tourism, the heritage and related matters. I hope that an integrated Ministry will be achieved soon, under whichever party is in office.
The necessary basis for a proper arts policy is significant public sector funding. One hon. Member who is in the House tonight, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), dissents from that view, but all countries in the developed world believe that it is necessary. This year's additional grant, 12.5 per cent., is generous, but it is not much more than the rate of inflation. Over three years, the average additional grant will be much lower. The average additional grant for the next two years is 4.5 per cent. Over three years, therefore, at current inflation rates, the increase in the arts budget will be less than the rate of inflation. We must increase public sector funding of the arts if they are to be properly sustained.
According to "Cultural Trends", comparable figures for comparable countries make it clear that, whether it is central Government or local government expenditure, expenditure per head on the arts in France, Germany, Sweden and Canada is greater than in this country. That needs to be remedied, whichever party is in power.
There is widespread support for arts administration to be organised on a regional basis. The Minister knows that my colleagues support the findings of the Wilding report. We must avoid duplication, but the strategy for co-ordinating the roles of the Arts Council, the regional arts authorities and local government is not clear. The Minister referred to the Arts Council's new strategic role, but it needs to be more clearly worked out and integrated into the structure of regional arts administration in England and into the national administration for Scotland and Wales. It is unsatisfactory that Scotland should have to depend on a single grant handout from the main budget.
The Minister is aware of the great concern in local authorities about arts funding. My borough is about to be charge-capped. One of the inevitable victims of limited local authority budgets will be the arts and other non-statutory expenditure. A few days ago I visited the Lyric theatre in Hammersmith, where I saw "Glory" by the Temba theatre company, which is based in Southwark. I had not seen any of its previous productions. It was an extremely good production, by any standards. That company is funded by the local authority as well as by the Greater London Arts Association. If we lose the local authority's contribution to high-quality art and popular art as a result of charge capping, it will be to the detriment of the cultural life of the borough.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: The hon. Gentleman referred to the contribution by Southwark borough to the arts and to the restrictions that may be placed upon funding of the arts by charge capping. Does he not acknowledge that Southwark's contributions to the arts in recent years has been derisory and that charge capping will not affect its contribution?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman and I have taken issue with each other previously on this issue. There has been correspondence between the chair of the arts committee in Southwark and both of us. I agree that Southwark has not given enough to the arts, but charge capping will not help. It will certainly hinder the expenditure on the arts that the people of Southwark need.
It is a mistake to hold back the purchase grant level to that which was in force in 1985. That amount must be


increased if a proper purchasing policy is to be achieved. I agree with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South that the Government ought to build up again the national heritage memorial fund, not in order to supply general funding but to fulfil the specific tasks for which it was established.
It is important to work out a clear structure for purchasing policies and export licences to take us to 1992 and beyond. I urge the Minister to adopt a European convention on the heritage and culture in order to ensure that cultural treasures are not lost to this country through legislative loopholes. We ought to be able to keep them here. Furthermore, they ought to be seen. We do not want the drain to continue after 1992 under the new regime in Europe.
As for arts education, one of my concerns is that local authorities cannot make the provision that they wish to make for arts and music under the national curriculum. Teachers have told me how difficult it is to obtain time for music and arts subjects. If young people are taught nothing about the arts and are therefore denied the spiritual dimension that the arts can add to their lives, their education will be very mundane; it will amount only to a job-preparation activity. I realise that this a Department of Education and Science, not an Office of Arts and Libraries, responsibility, but I hope that the Minister realises that those gaps must be filled. Our children must be provided with tuition in music and the arts while they are at school.
The Minister heard my question on Monday. It is a mistake to charge young people for entry into museums. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred to that point in his speech. Our museums and galleries must also provide more facilities for the disabled. Other countries provide more facilities for the disabled than we do. Moreover, they provide more audio-visual facilities. We must do likewise.
As for our cathedrals, I associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South. Even if the cathedrals lose some of their autonomy, we ought to support with public funds some of the finest buildings in our land.
To turn to London issues, it gives me great pleasure, as one who is not a Londoner by birth, to live in a capital city with such a wonderful variety of arts provision. London provides us with some wonderful artistic opportunities. It is sad, therefore, that the big four—the Royal Opera house, English National Opera, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the National theatre—are in such financial difficulties that their activities cannot be guaranteed. They are the best of their type. All experience shows that they need to be funded properly. The only way to provide them with proper stability is to write off their current debts. I ask the Minister to try to persuade his colleagues to support that aim.
I am also concerned about the threat that hangs over the Museum of London and the Greater London archaeological service due to the proposed withdrawal of its grant, as announced by English Heritage. That is causing great concern in all parts of the House. There is to be a meeting about it later this month. I hope that the Minister will investigate that as the work of the Museum

of London and the Greater London archaeological service must be sustained. To cut their grant would be a great mistake.
We still have not had any announcement about areas of archaeological importance. Five have been decided, but I hope that further decisions will be imminent. I also hope that the Government will be slightly more sympathetic about the costs in the Rose theatre case, about which I have been in correspondence with Lord Hesketh, and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.

Mr. John Bowis: I suspect that greater love hath no man than to give up the World cup for his artistic friends. I am delighted to take part in this debate.
Hon. Members have raised a variety of subjects, including music, and this has been a musical week for me. I started off on Saturday at Glyndebourne watching Peter Sellers clutch "The Magic Flute"—an interesting, good production. This Saturday I shall play the jingle bells in the Horowitz toy symphony at the Festival hall. I am not sure that that will enhance the musical tradition to which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) referred, but it will extend my experience.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and his hon. Friends have been churlish about artistic achievements in the Government's term of office and that of my right hon. Friend the Minister. The hon. Gentleman specifically referred to the National theatre. He did not mention the nine awards achieved by 33 productions at that theatre, nor the 650,000 people who attend it regularly—all that he mentioned was a leak in the roof. The hon. Gentleman has got things out of proportion. I hope that he will think again before he criticises the great work of our theatres.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the acting profession and did his bit by auditioning for a part in "Allo, Allo". I am a member of the Committee considering the Finance Bill and last night I spoke up for the actors in my constituency and nationwide. My hon. Friends and I were delighted when the Treasury Minister made a substantial concession. It was therefore right that we sought to withdraw our amendment pending the measure to assist actors which is to be introduced on Report. The Minister deserves our support.
On other occasions, the hon. Gentleman has referred to the uniform business rate. I believe that the message has got through that UBR is assisting the arts. Greater London Arts has conducted a survey which shows that 65 per cent. of arts organisations in London will benefit from UBR, by, on average, £1,200. The remaining 35 per cent. will face an average shortfall of £500. The benefit to those organisations results from the 80 per cent. relief that the Government have introduced for bodies with charitable status. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that that is good news.
I regret that I have been called before the leader of the opposition to the arts, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks). In an intervention he compared spending on sport with that on the arts. My hon. Friend should reconsider the support that the taxpayer gives to sport. The television licence fee is used to bid vast sums for the broadcasting of sporting events. I do not resent that. The tax from the football pools is to be


used to improve football grounds. The rate support grant and the community charge also contribute to local government support for sport in schools, pre-school groups, youth clubs and sports clubs. The taxpayer contributes an immense amount to sports. We should also take into account the even larger amounts of money devoted to policing sporting events. I do not resent the great sums spent on sport, but my hon. Friend must accept that those sums are comparable with the amount spent on the arts and their promotion in schools, youth clubs, art clubs and artistic venues. In common with expenditure on sport, the money is spent to promote access as well as safety. I hope that we can unite in supporting that. When sports events are broadcast, the promoters of the event are allowed to advertise their products. Alas, the same is not the case when an operatic or theatrical production is broadcast. Perhaps we should reconsider that.
The great difference between art and sport is that, ultimately, good art is eternal but sport is temporal. If there were no sponsorship of the arts, we should have a cultural desert. I am all for people thronging to see "The Phantom of the Opera" or "The Mousetrap", or visiting the Raymond Revuebar, but if they were the sole artistic productions of this country we should be much the poorer. We need to acquire sponsorship from the taxpayer as well as the threatre and opera-goer to guarantee the quality of our arts.
The heritage that we seek to pass on is as much cultural as environmental. Reference has been made to the way in which heritage and the arts merge. Town planning, landscape architecture and the use of green spaces is important, as art attaches itself to the environment. A wall painting is part of community art and contributes to the environment and the artistic life of that community. It is only a short step from that to the hung painting. The pageantry of trooping the colour leads on to public performances of the mystery plays and is part of our dramatic and musical tradition.
The arts are also important because of what they can contribute to the social welfare of our society. Self-confidence can be restored to people going through a bad patch when they discover that they have an artistic ability. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) referred to ADAPT. On Friday I initiated a debate on disability and today I again urge my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to promote arts for the disabled. That means not just access to theatres, but participation in the arts by people with disabilities. We should also encourage the arts to promote a positive image of disability so that it becomes more acceptable to our society.
I welcome the recent brochure produced by my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the arts in our schools. The teaching of the arts in schools does not just mean outings to the theatre and being taught to play a particular instrument—it is about using the arts to teach other subjects. The brochure shows how that can be done. The Horniman museum uses the Dolmetsch collection of old instruments as part of its teaching programme for schools. That venture is welcome. I am pleased that the Horniman and the Geffrye museums have embarked on their new independent status—another sign of progress under the Government. I hope that the brochure will be used to expand such teaching methods throughout our education system.
Arts in education are important. I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to press the case for resisting any suggestion from any place, on either side of the channel, to impose VAT on books. That would be wrong.
Reference has been made to the number of galleries and paintings in London. Our tradition of hanging the best collections in London is expanding at the Courtauld, Clore and Sainsbury galleries. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that access to such paintings does not just mean taking them out of the cellars. I know that that is important, but we must ensure that they are on public display when the public can see them. All too often, galleries are closed on public holidays—the very days when families could see the paintings. Galleries should be open on those days, as well as at the weekend and in the evening.
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a few arts-related issues which are of interest to me and, I hope, the House. I support my right hon. Friend in all that he has done. He has achieved a tremendous amount. If the message today is, "Onwards and upwards", it is one that we give to him personally for what he has achieved and will achieve in the many years during which, I hope, he will hold his office. He is doing a great job for the arts in this country.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I welcome this opportunity to take part in a debate on the arts. I support the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who agrees that the Minister for the Arts should have a seat in the Cabinet. Although good advice has been given to the Prime Minister, she is not known for accepting it, and we shall have to wait until my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) becomes the Minister for the Arts before we see such a Minister in the Cabinet.
This is a nostalgic debate for me, as the hon. Members for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) are present. I was at school in the Twickenham constituency when I went to see my first play at the Richmond theatre, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes. To take the nostalgia further, I was born in Aden when the Governor of Aden was the father of the present Minister for the Arts.
Two aspects in my constituency are directly affected by this debate. I and other hon. Members who represent Leicester have been horrified at the deteriorating circumstances of the Haymarket theatre, which has a national and international reputation. In the past three years, the theatre has produced 26 main house and 24 studio productions, as well as hosting a variety of visits from different countries, including Russia and America. It has prepared and organised plays and events for children and local amateur companies, and developed a community base for concerts.
The theatre has produced many plays which have been taken to the west end and beyond. "High Society" started off at the Haymarket in Leicester, "Pride and Prejudice" went on a national tour, "Julius Caesar" went on a British Council tour of India, "M Butterfly" went to the west end, and other plays which started life in Leicester have ended up all over the world. That has all been put at risk because of the funding crisis now affecting the Haymarket theatre.
There are four reasons for the risk. First, the amount of grant aid received by the theatre is directly related to the fact that the three-year funding deals were made when the inflation rate was low. The increase in inflation has meant that the theatre's management simply cannot deal with the gap that has grown between the income that it receives and its expenditure. In 1987–88, it received an income of £2,220,000 and its expenditure was £2,240,000. That deficit has continued until this year. Although there is a projected budget surplus for this year, during the course of the year there was a crisis which resulted in the resignation of the theatre's director, Peter Lichenshield, the departure of the artistic director and a number of staff redundancies.
At that time, those of us in Leicester who were proud of the tradition of the Haymarket theatre were concerned and I raised the issue with the Minister in the House. His only response was that the theatre had to live within its means. The message that I receive from the theatre management—my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central was a recent visitor to the theatre—is that they have tried to do that. They have cut costs and accepted voluntary redundancies, but in the end the theatre simply cannot afford to survive because of the current climate.
As well as the funding difficulties, the management also face the trauma of current Government economic policy. High interest rates have affected people who go to the theatre, reducing their spending power so that fewer of them go to the Haymarket theatre and audience figures are affected. In addition, the introduction of the poll tax and the squeeze on local government expenditure in the past few years, specifically on Leicester city council and Leicestershire county council, has meant that such councils have had fewer funds available to support the arts.
I pay tribute to the work done by the recreation and arts department of Leicester city council, particularly its chairman, Derek Fryett, and its director, Alan Llewellyn. The provision of grants on a limited basis has enabled many important events to take place in Leicester. But for the grants available, De Montfort hall, a main venue for concerts and other functions, would not be able to host so many events. Grants from the city council and county council to local neighbourhood arts centres and schools have enabled such activities to take place.
We are all extremely pleased about the support for multicultural activities. Without a grant from Leicester city council, I should have been unable to organise a pensioners' concert in the Members' Dining Room in the House which was attended by more than 100 pensioners from Leicester and enabled a local school—Judge Meadow community college—to show off its ability to produce good music.
The Minister has said that there are always opportunities for funding to be sought from local businesses through sponsorship schemes, but we have found that impossible on a local basis because of current Government policy. There is a limit to the extent to which we can accept sponsorship from business. I would not like to see a production of "King Lear" with all the participants wearing Marks and Spencer badges.
I wish to address some remarks about local conservation and heritage, particularly planning, to the

Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who is present. One of the most effective ways to protect our local heritage and environment is by updating our planning laws. We have heard that the Government are intent on bringing forward a major piece of planning legislation next year to satisfy people who are concerned about planning problems.
The present planning laws fail to take into consideration current conservation areas. I will give an example of what happened to my constituents in Humberstone, an outer district of Leicester. I know that the Minister has visited Leicester, but I think that he has always been taken on tours of the inner city rather than the outer estates. There was a pleasant piece of land, a wildlife area, bounded by three roads—Stanley drive, Vicarage road and St. Mary's avenue. That land had been used by local people as a wildlife reserve, but a local firm of builders called Jelsons decided to develop the land for housing at a time when it was impossible to sell new houses in Leicester. It purchased the land by buying bits of people's gardens—what I would describe as the domino principle—and when it had enough of the land, it applied for planning permission. As a result of a well-organised community campaign, the council refused planning permission. The builders immediately sent in bulldozers and completely flattened the land and we discovered that no planning legislation could have prevented them.
From the time when planning permission is refused to the time when a planning appeal is heard, there is no way to stop a developer changing the nature of the land. I introduced a Bill on this subject recently, but I am sure that it will never reach the statute book as there will not be enough time before the House rises. I should like the Government's new planning Bill adequately to reflect the concerns of the people of Humberstone, and other parts of my constituency such as Evington, who want to ensure that the conservation areas that they have established are maintained and that developers who are keen to build houses for profit should not put that profit before the local environment.
I hope that the Minister for the Environment and Countryside will take my points on board and will ask the Minister for the Arts to visit Leicester for discussions with the Haymarket theatre.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I have moved from the Back Benches to a Front Bench because I am the only authentic opposition voice in the House. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts is likely to be moved, perhaps I shall get a phone call from No. 10 asking me to take over the arts. If that happens, I shall do away with the subsidies within a week.
We have wasted yet another day of parliamentary time on a non-issue. We spend a great deal of time talking about the arts spending other people's money for things that most people do not want to see or hear. Tonight 24 million people are watching the World cup semi-final. That is indicative of the importance that England attaches to its football team, despite its poor performance. That interest should be compared with the general approach to the arts.
Football must have an intrinsic interest or people would not watch it. There is a great deal of entertainment to be had from watching Roger Milla after he has scored a goal for Cameroon because he runs to the touch line and


does the samba. It is as good as or perhaps better than watching Rudolf Nureyev doing his "Nutcracker" or perhaps, as some people might say, cracking his nuts.
The arts world is not satisfied with £600 million guaranteed for three years, even though no other area of Government spending gets such a guarantee. The Arts Council grant of £175 million is rising to £190 million, but it seems that that is not enough. Some 60 per cent. of Arts Council clients have overspent their allocation and want additional funds. They do not need extra funds. It is just that they could not keep within their budgets in the way that everyone else has to and want another dip into the taxpayers' pocket.
The grant given by my right hon. Friend has a built-in inflation factor of approximately 12 per cent. That should be compared with the 3.9 to 4.2 per cent. factor allocated by the Government to the community charge grant. However, the arts get 12 per cent. built in and guaranteed for three years. In a press release issued by my right hon. Friend a short time ago, he apologised to people in the arts because inflation had eaten so badly into their funds. There is no apology from my Government to old-age pensioners or others about inflation eating into their way of life, but then the arts lobby is rather special.
The history of the arts is a catalogue of total mismanagement, financial ineptitude, productions that are too expensive, and artistes' fees that are too high. The arts are living beyond their means. Taxpayers' money is being poured down the drain and we should be ashamed of that. If the arts cannot afford to pay the proper price for their so-called stars, they should employ second division singers and ballet dancers. The arts are even worse than the race relations industry. Many incompetent hypocrites are seeking power without financial responsibility and are willing to sponge off the rest of us to maintain their status. The ballet, classical music and the opera are the nouvelle cuisine of the entertainment world. When I was a kid, my mother used to eat the peas and throw away the pod. In this modern age we throw away the peas and eat the pod.
Arty-farty people are running the arts and they want more money from us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) tried to show, they are always emphasising how special they are. Neither he nor anyone else could define art. If someone is willing to try to explain it to me I would be willing to listen. The definition of the arty-farty world is quite simple. Art is what people want it to be and what they can con the taxpayer into paying for.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dicks: No, I will not give way.
I shall now discuss the film industry, which is also on the gravy train. Richard "call me Dickie" Attenborough has made two of the most boring films that one could hope to see. They were "Gandhi" and "Cry Freedom". David Puttnam walked out of Hollywood because he could not cope with the pressure. Those two conned the Prime Minister into giving them £5 million for the film industry and then walked out of the meeting with the Prime Minister and joined the Labour party. If ever the Government were taken for a ride that was it. They said, "Thank you very much, Prime Minister. Please, Mr. Kinnock, you have no brains in your party, so let us in instead." What a gravy train it all is.

Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dicks: No, I will not.

Mr. Fisher: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for me to say that England are one-nil up? That might shorten the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Dicks: I hope that you will add that few seconds to my time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the lads and am delighted to hear the news. It is much more important than the arts.
Richard Attenborough and David Puttnam have made a fortune from films, but they want more public money and will not take a penny from their own pockets.
Let us come nearer to home. The House advisory committee on works of art has just bought a painting. I do not know the exact price, although someone mentioned £300,000. That painting will be added to the 3,000 that are already in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dicks: No, I will not give way. Please sit down.

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What the hon. Gentleman has said is completely untrue.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is a matter for debate.

Mr. Dicks: I understand from a press report—I do not believe them all, although I tend to believe this one—that an artist called Milly Childers painted a picture called "The Terrace" which shows Members of Parliament lounging about, no doubt in a tired and emotional state, on the Terrace. If that is true—I bear in mind what my hon. Friend says—

Mr. Cormack: This man is a disgrace to the House of Commons.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We hear all points of view in this Chamber.

Mr. Dicks: My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) reminds me of Henry VIII not with all the doublet and hose, but at least well fed. Andrew Lloyd Webber's "The Phantom of the Opera" and "Miss Saigon" demonstrate that shows can attract audiences and survive without subsidies. The same applies to professional football, although my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea disputes that. Any money that goes from the pools to professional football is private sector, not public sector, money. That is important.
Pavarotti is making a small fortune introducing football on the BBC. I wonder how much that overweight Italian is contributing to the Royal Opera house from the money that he receives. My guess is that he contributes nothing and that the money is going straight into his pocket. I do not blame him, but so much for the need to support the arts.
I shall give an example of an important aspect of independence. The tie that I am wearing is that of the Wooden Spoon society. In 1983, when England received the wooden spoon for losing all its rugby matches, a group of supporters—not hooligans—were flying back from Dublin and decided that, despite the despondency caused by watching England lose, they would start to raise money for charity as a means of remembering the day. They have


now raised almost £1 million and they have done it without lobbying and without subsidy. They have not squealed or whinged, they just pushed on with hard work. I shall be happy to enrol for £10 any hon. Member who wants to join the Wooden Spoon society.
The Government should immediately stop all subsidies to the arts. There can be no justification for asking an ordinary chap to pay money for such nonsense. The arts should learn to cut their suit according to the cloth and productions should be economically viable. People should be taught simple double entry book-keeping because they do not understand what is going on. They should, of course, stop whingeing.
I quote from an article whose author is not known to me:
The best way to lower 'cultural' standards … is to subsidise them. Men and women without wit, talent or experience of life-self-supporting are found decorating subsidised theatres, galleries and 'centres'. They overflow into radio and TV. Incomprehensible rubbish is described as the work of genius. Dull, confusing plays without middle, beginning or end are lauded as great works. At the centre is the Arts Council handing out your money. They tell you what is good for you. They are the experts … who said so? They did. The more money they get the more they demand. The culture vultures fight over the grants … Opera battles with Willie S … the little ones complain of the shortage of crumbs; but all are united, no matter if only one ticket in ten is sold, the show must go on until all the grants are spent.
They are also united in their arrogance.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We should all be delighted that the hon. Gentleman can read, but is it in order for him to quote at such length?

Mr. Dicks: I did say that I do not know the identity of the author. Nevertheless, the article goes on to say that those people
are willing to go slumming with the masses…like a bit of old time music hall, a limited offer of slap and tickle drama but the 'people' must not take to their hearts any of the 'higher forms' unless it is approved

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Member a little injury time because he was interrupted by three points of order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will now respect the Chair. I call him to order, and I call the next speaker.

Mr. Fisher: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that the House was misled by the Government, because the Minister's parliamentary private secretary informed us that England had scored against West Germany. In fact, it seems that the Government cannot get their facts right. I am sad to say that there is still no score.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The House is much obliged to the hon. Member for keeping it up to date with what is occurring elsewhere. Mr. Tony Banks.

Mr. Tony Banks: I cannot say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), but he always makes an interesting contribution. I apologise to the House because I shall have to leave soon after I have made my speech to attend the press night of "The Dragon Can't Dance", a

new play by Earl Lovelace at the Theatre Royal, Stratford East—and I promise not to look at a television on my way out of the House. I shall refer to that event again later.
It is good to have an arts debate, but there are times when they seem to exist only to provide a platform for the theatre of the absurd provided by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. I hoped that he would say something about the rumour that the BBC is to offer him a programme commenting on the arts. I understand that that rumour is absolutely true.

Mr. Dicks: indicated assent.

Mr. Banks: I can hardly believe that, but I must take it as being true. I expect that we will hear sooner or later about the endowment of the Ronnie Kray chair in fine arts, or perhaps the SAS will open a charm school. Those are all unlikely events, but if the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is to pontificate on the arts, anything is possible. If he offers me a slot in his programme, I assure him that I shall accept.
During the Minister's speech, I intervened to ask about local authority funding for the arts, and received the reply that it varied from authority to authority. The right hon. Gentleman said that it is for authorities themselves to decide how much to spend, which I thought was a disingenuous remark. The Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for the Environment and Countryside know all about the strictures imposed by central Government on local authority finance.
It is all very well for the Minister for the Arts to say that it is up to local authorities to determine their arts expenditure, but other Government Departments pursue policies that make it difficult for authorities to maintain their housing programmes, social services and so on.
One can imagine the situation in town hall after town hall throughout the country, where local councillors, much abused by the press and the Government, have to decide whether to go along with poll tax capping and cuts in central Government funding, and whether they should cut expenditure on housing, social services, education, or the arts.
The Minister cannot wash his hands of those real decisions that local councillors must take. He should start telling his colleagues at the Department of the Environment that, if local authorities are to fund the arts, careful consideration should be given to the restraints imposed on them by central Government. The right hon. Gentleman cannot walk away from the hard set of choices that local authorities must take because of central Government action.
I return to the subject of the Theatre Royal, Stratford East, which is an excellent theatre under one of our best directors, Philip Hedley. Its budget largely comes from the London boroughs of Newham and Waltham Forest. The sum of £222,000 comes from Newham, £53,000 from the London borough grant scheme, £26,000 from Waltham Forest, and £262,000 from Greater London Arts. The increase in Newham's grant was about 9 per cent. It is the second most deprived local authority area in the whole country, according to the indices of the Department of the Environment. Newham has massive housing problems, but the council is desperately trying to save the Theatre Royal by keeping it open and making sure that it receives


enough money to stage excellent productions. The council wants more than just a pat on the head from politicians and the Minister—it wants fairly substantial support.
When the Department of the Environment looks at the allocation of funds to Newham next year, I hope that it will hear from the Minister about the excellent work that the borough is doing, particularly in respect of the Theatre Royal, Stratford East.
That theatre tried hard to secure business sponsorship, to which we have no ideological objections. We will take money from anyone prepared to give it. Capitalist gold is as good as anyone else's gold in that respect. Wanting to maximise its income, the Theatre Royal appointed a full-time fundraiser to investigate business sponsorship. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said, it is difficult to raise money in poor parts of the country. It is extremely difficult to do so in Newham and the rest of the east end. Businesses want to support the prestigious national companies and are not too interested in provincial theatres or those on the fringe of London, however good may be their productions.
I received today from Philip Hedley some of the comments that the Theatre Royal received when it tried to raise money among the local business community. They included, "New work might fail". The Theatre Royal stages eight new productions a year. Where does the Minister think they all come from? Where is all the innovation coming from? It is coming from theatres such as the Theatre Royal. Business people do not want to know that, or to be associated with a possible failure—but the arts must have the right to fail as well. That is part of innovation. One cannot always guarantee success. Because art is a matter of taste, today's failure might at another time be deemed a great success. There are plenty of examples of that throughout the arts.
Another comment was, "You are too controversial." The arts are meant to be challenging and controversial. One does not want people to sit there looking at something that is like a moving chocolate box top. Instead, one wants to stimulate, encourage and enthuse the audience or viewer. Of course the arts are controversial. A further comment was,
Your audience is too mixed, and doesn't make a good target market.
We in the east end are poor. That is one of the other reasons why a large number of black people patronise the Theatre Royal. It has one of the best mixed audiences in the country. That may not constitute an economically attractive audience to someone who views the arts as a way of getting money back on the investment that they make in the theatre.
One remark that I can attribute is that from the Midland bank. When asked to support the theatre, it replied:
No, you do plays against Mrs. Thatcher.
Oh, dear. That was the reason given by the Midland bank, which of course takes a politically partisan position.
The other attributable quote was from the London Docklands development corporation, which has so much Newham land. There is much wealth in the south of the borough, but little of it finds its way anywhere near my constituency. The LDDC replied:
We are giving money to the National Theatre and not you because the people who go there"—
meaning the National theatre—
can afford our expensive flats down by the river.

They wanted to sell some of the unsaleable flats that they could not sell because of the high interest rates caused by the Government's economic policy.
Those are the problems that we have had in the east end when we have tried to raise money through business sponsorship. Despite all that, the play that I am attending tonight, called "The Dragon Can't Dance"—which, incidentally, is a play by Earl Lovelace—is about a carnival in Trinidad where one of the sponsors tries to clean up the carnival. I do not know whether one of the business sponsors of tonight's production knows that.
I approached the London electricity board for some money. It said, "We have a pot of money for some good causes; what would you suggest?" I replied, "Give some money to the Theatre Royal." We had £4,500 from the LEB, and we were very pleased with that, but it was just a drop in the bucket—although we were prepared to take it. I want the Minister to be aware of exactly what is happening. I also want him to know that theatres such as the Theatre Royal have major problems trying to get money from the local authority and the local community.
The Minister has obtained some good money for the arts. I do not wish to sneer at his achievements in competition with other Ministers. He has done a good job—we know that because the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington hates him for it, which is why we must be on the right hon. Gentleman's side tonight. However, 0.3 per cent. of our national wealth is pathetic in comparison with, say, the 11.8 per cent. of our national wealth that we spend on defence. I want that peace dividend. I want the defence budget to be slashed right the way through, and I hope that a Labour Government will do that. We can then start investing the money in the finest form of investment, which is the creativity and the arts of our people.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I preface my remarks by declaring an interest as I once worked in the arts business as a fine arts auctioneer.
I am disappointed—as, I suspect, are some other hon. Members—with the timing of the debate. Once again, the arts have been relegated beneath an important football engagement. Nevertheless, the House should have its attention drawn to the importance of the arts as a sector and as an industry. I regret that there are not more Opposition Members present. They might have been pleased to reflect on the fact that the arts sector nationally has a turnover of more than £10 billion and represents more than 2.5 per cent. of all the spending on goods and services. That makes it comparable with such major industries as vehicles or, indeed, anything in Britain. With that in mind, it is extraordinary that the Labour party does not take more interest in it.
The arts give direct employment to almost half a million people, or 2.1 per cent. of the working population. Twenty-seven per cent. of all spending on tourism is specifically attributable to the arts, and £2.7 billion of all general consumer spending is specifically attributable to the pulling power of the arts. The arts is a major industry in this country and should be treated as such. I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in supporting the idea of promoting the ministerial post for the arts to a Cabinet


appointment. It would do the arts an enormous service. The combination of an arts, heritage and tourism post within the Cabinet would make good sense.
No hon. Member would seriously argue against the social benefits of a thriving arts industry—not only are the arts an integral part of our national heritage and culture, the very spirit of the nation, but like sport they have the power to draw people and societies together. They can be a key element in the revitalisation of inner cities—as Birmingham, the city that I have the honour to represent, has rightly recognised—restoring civic pride and bringing public safety and live people, who spend back into our otherwise deserted central city streets. In the evenings, the strong cultural infrastructure is an economic asset to the business community and can assist cities such as Birmingham to attract conventions, conferences and businesses to the area, as well as to retain important business executives and talented people in the area. It is a tremendous advantage to any regional centre.
My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the work of Birmingham both in promoting its share of the 1 per cent. scheme, and in sponsoring the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra, in attracting the Sadler's Wells Royal ballet—now the Birmingham Royal ballet—and the D'Oyly Carte opera. I ask my right hon. Friend to give strong support to the idea of Birmingham becoming one of the first in the city of culture scheme leading up to the millennium. Birmingham would do that with great aplomb. The creation of a new environment for the symphony orchestra would enormously enhance the city's prestige and would support the moves that Birmingham has made in trying to improve its image and its significant patronage of the arts.
I join my hon. Friends in praising my right hon. Friend the Minister for recognising the importance of regional centres of culture. I ask him especially to recognise the importance of Birmingham as a regional centre of culture. When making a distinction between where funding should go, it is important that, however important the flagships to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred, the natural tendency of the Arts Council will always be to put funding in the direction of the major flagship, often leading to a paucity in other areas which are doing their best to encourage sponsorship in partnership with the private sector, as Birmingham is doing.
As I have worked as a fine arts auctioneer, a business involving the sale of art abroad, I would be interested in my right hon. Friend's comments—or he may communicate with me privately—on the possible conflict of interest between the necessities of freedom of goods and capital consequent upon 1992 and the possible loss to collections in Europe of major works of art which might otherwise be retained for the British nation. There is a grave danger of our being hoist by our own petard. We support the idea of the movement of capital and goods within the EEC, but we want to ensure that we retain our works of national importance in Britain. Can my right hon. Friend give further clarification as to what steps will be taken to ensure that we do not lose out in that tug of war?

Mr. Luce: Article 36 of the treaty of Rome makes it clear that each member country of the European

Community should continue to carry out protection of its heritage in whatever way it wishes. That does not mean that there is no problem with movement through the frontier because there would be no control, but article 36 gives member states the right to continue protection policies in relation to their heritage.

Mr. Hargreaves: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clarification. I hope that the position that I have outlined will not materialise. If my right hon. Friend wishes to make a lasting, valuable contribution to the future of the arts in this country, he should try further to persuade his Treasury colleagues that a special relationship needs to be established between the state and the private sector in funding for the arts. There may be arguments about how much, where and when. Gift aid is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. If we want to keep major works of art in this country and to improve our national art collections, we have to offer tax advantages to private as well as commercial sponsors.
There have been arguments about the way that has worked in the United States. I do not necessarily agree with some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) because I am not sure that they would necessarily benefit us. Some stronger formula has to be established in the relationship between the tax advantage to an individual in purchasing works of art for the nation and its availability to the nation thereafter. That is the only way we shall secure and keep valuable works of art in this country. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to press that point with Treasury Ministers. We need a structure for the future, which could be inflation-linked in terms of state contributions and tax set-offs. We must give priority to tax incentives for this purpose. I would not normally say that tax incentives are a good idea, but we must make an exception for charitable giving or donations to the arts and national heritage. I urge my right hon. Friend to press his Treasury colleagues on that point.
I join others in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister on the tremendous service that he has performed for the arts in the past five years. Before I became a Member, I knew from friends in the industry that my right hon. Friend had many friends in the arts world. They all recognise the debt that the arts owe him for his service.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I know that the Minister plays an excellent role—I have always respected him—but, as I said in an intervention, he must be a little more incisive. A struggle must be made to get much more money for the arts. It is no good saying that money does not exist—of course it does.
I should like to comment on the important subject of whether we should charge an entrance fee for access to our great national museums and galleries. I have served on each of the three Select Committees on Education, Science and Arts. The latest Committee's first report on museums was a major one. We rampaged around the country to put the information together and split up to visit theatres, especially in Newcastle. Like the Labour party, I profoundly believe that there should be free access to our great galleries and museums, just as there has always been.
Occasionally, a charge must be made when important bygones from other countries are brought here—for example, when the British museum held its Egyptian


exhibition. It could be proved that that exhibition paid off splendidly. There were great queues of people willing to pay large amounts of money. Labour Members are not attacking that practice. We know that it will continue.
When examining galleries, members of the Select Committee went to the Louvre and discussed entrance fees with its leading figures. Since Napoleon, the French have always paid entrance fees, so there is a great gap in their knowledge. The authorities do not know how many people are kept away because of the fees. The people who go into the great galleries change, so the authorities cannot form a correct conclusion. The Conservative majority on the Select Committee wanted the Committee to go to a place where people paid entrance fees. It would be wrong to generalise.
It is nauseating to talk about lack of money in this rich and powerful country. Labour Members believe that all the breast beating about poverty is nonsense. The coffers are filled with money as never before in our history. At least £100 million has come from North sea oil—a bonus that no other European country has had. The selling off of the family silver—the national assets—has brought in many billions of pounds. Those sources have provided a massive amount of money, yet the Government are prepared to charge people entrance fees for the first time.
During all our difficult periods in the past 200 years—slumps, immense poverty and wars—we have somehow managed to let people have free access to all our national treasures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) pointed out that people wander into galleries to get out of the rain. If one takes a child into a great gallery on such an occasion, one may be convinced that the child will be bored, but the gallery may open the gates to tremendous enthusiasm for the exhibits. By excluding people from galleries, we are perhaps excluding them from culture and beauty for a long period of their lives. Most people can appreciate culture and beauty. Despite all the money at our disposal, as a percentage of gross national product we give to the arts and heritage only about half as much as Germany and France. The Swedes give three times as much as we do. The fact that we are low on that table is inexcusable. We must fight for more money.
I have referred previously to the mess at the Victoria and Albert museum. I went into the great Raphael cartoon gallery, which is miserable just because of lack of money but which houses some of the noblest works that humankind has produced. It was dark and looked almost tawdry. It is not fitting for a great nation. No matter how much we praise the Minister—I know of his integrity and honesty—as a nation we must go more deeply into this matter and realise the damage that we are doing by advocating payment to enter our great galleries and museums.
The three Select Committees on Education, Science and Arts have never before failed to achieve consensus. Although members of the Committee disagreed, we never parted company on issues and never presented a minority report—except on this matter, on which we took a stand. I know that as one who drafted the minority report and struggled for it. We were defeated all the way through by five to four.

Mr. Cormack: Not in 1981.

Mr. Flannery: No, not in 1981. The hon. Gentleman knows that if I had my way he would have been Chairman of that Select Committee after Chris Price went.
Charging cannot be separated from the regime under which we live. The Government talk about law and order, but they have spawned more crime as a result of the get-rich-quick mentality and, to some extent, have so corrupted us that we should even consider making admission charges. When charges were first made in Wales, attendances at the national museum of Wales dropped by 85 per cent.
Those in favour of making charges try to play down the number of people who are discouraged from attending museums and galleries, and the quality of the people who are discouraged. Research shows that those people tend to be visitors to London, probably a mother and father and two children. The Victoria and Albert museum put up a sign inviting voluntary contributions. I watched people read it and then go away. It is no good anybody saying that that did not happen. People either thought, "I am not paying" or "I will have to pay", but they still turned away. Attendances fell by 40 per cent. after that sign went up and the museum has hardly recovered—it is in grave difficulty. I think that Roy Strong led the opposition to voluntary charges at the Victoria and Albert, but he capitulated. We are slipping up badly by excluding so many people.
Some members of the Select Committee did not think that they were doing anything untoward when they decided that the issue was so important that they had to issue a minority report. The great Tory leader, Sir Robert Peel, decided that museums should be free. Speaking in 1832—the Victoria and Albert opened in 1824—he said that he wanted it to be free because many people did not have access to beauty whereas the wealthy had big houses and could buy their own pictures. I know that times have changed, but none the less this is part of our education system. If we take action which militates against people going into our—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret to have to call the hon. Gentleman to order, but his 10 minutes have passed.

Mr. Flannery: I have made my points. I would have liked to develop them further, but I shall leave the matter there.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I should like to take the opportunity of this debate to focus attention on the environment and the threat to the heritage—our architectural and art heritage—and the artefacts that form part of it.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) drew attention to loopholes in the planning legislation, which tried to introduce safeguards to stop developers intruding on part of our national heritage. The planning provisions are frequently being circumvented not only in the way mentioned by the hon. Gentleman but in ways that are not so readily realised.
In recent months, we have seen attempts by large public bodies such as British Rail to avoid the statutory provisions protecting listed buildings. The now notorious clause 19 of the King's Cross Railways Bill attempted to oust the normal planning provisions safeguarding listed buildings. That issue should be brought to the attention of


hon. Members who are concerned about protecting and safeguarding our architectural heritage. I have no doubt that when the Committee considering the King's Cross Railways Bill reports it will draw attention to that.
I should like to draw to hon. Members' attention three further Bills that are based on that point—the London Underground Bill, the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill and the Midland Metro Bill. Someone has noticed the loophole in the legislation and, by clever draftsmanship, is attempting to avoid the proper statutory provisions that the House passed to protect listed buildings.
I understand that there may be good and innocent reasons for the inclusion of clause 19. Although it does not appear to affect a listed building, it fails to take account of the fact that after the Bill has been deposited the line of the route may be changed, perhaps posing a threat to buildings. The clause is too clever by half, and we should exercise our constitutional duty to object to it on principle to ensure that it is not included in the Bill. When those other Bills are considered by the House, there will be an opportunity to sound the siren and to ensure that parliamentary draftsmen and agents recognise the threat.
The answer is to have early consultation with English Heritage to allow it to discuss with any potential developer or promoter of private Bills what is or is not acceptable. Hon. Members who observed the disgraceful way in which English Heritage was barred from making any representations about the King's Cross Bill will recognise how important that is. It was only on the insistence of members of the Committee that English Heritage was given a hearing. It is disgraceful that the promoters of a private Bill, whether it be a public body such as British Rail or a private developer, should be able to oust, for private gain, the statutory provisions for protecting our heritage. I hope that the reforms of the private Bill procedure will close that loophole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) mentioned the protection of our movable heritage—arts and artefacts that can be moved from this country. My hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and I spent this morning at the Wallace collection. It struck a chord when the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne implied that from now on there should be no export of art from the country where it was domiciled. Over the years, the magnificent Wallace collection has been gathered from all parts of the world, particularly France, but it is now domiciled in London. It would be regrettable if, in ensuring that those important aspects of our national heritage remain here, we were so to stultify and to place such rigid controls on the art market that there was no free flow of works of art on the continent of Europe. Only by allowing certain works of art to flow freely will we achieve that European feeling which should be engendered by the treaty of Rome.
It is interesting that the treaty foresaw the possibility of such a provision by trying to strike a balance between the free flow of works of art among Community countries

while recognising that certain works of art belong so intrinsically to the country of origin that they are part of the national heritage.
That is why we should be careful about making any changes to the Waverley criteria. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, those criteria have served us well in many ways by ensuring that we keep in this country that which should be here while not inhibiting the art market—an international market based in London, which contributes much to our national economy and which should be allowed to continue to flourish here. The art market attracts clients and brings with it spin-off benefits to our hotels and restaurants as well as our performing arts. The dealers, buyers and clients do not spend all their time in the sale room; they participate in other aspects of our national culture that contribute much to our lives. The insurance market and our fiscal provisions ensure that other contributions flow from that market.
I wish to query the proposals advanced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which appear to affect the existing controls on the arts trade and what a seller may sell beyond the shores of this country. I understood that the position had in part been clarified earlier in the debate and that the proposition was that if a work of art for which an export licence was sought was already on public view it would remain on public view thereafter. However, I am still not entirely clear what my right hon. Friend intended and what the implications were.
There is a further point on which I seek clarification. If a private individual bids to buy a work of art at the export price, can that sale be effected during a museum's public appeal in connection with the purchase of that work? There appears to be some uncertainty about that.
Suppose that we have restrictions that are too tight. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne mentioned Italy, where the rigidity of the rules should ensure a static home for the works of art in that country. But that has the unfortunate consequence of a great deal of smuggling and a lively black market in works of art from Italy. We must ensure that that does not happen here if we tighten the restrictions in one direction or another.
When a private purchaser purchases a work of art for which an export licence has been refused and which has been retained in this country, should there be a time limit on a further application for an export licence? If that remains unclarified, we may create a speculators' charter: people may buy works of art and keep them for a short speculative period before seeking a further export licence.
I felt that I should sound a siren signal about these matters this evening and I hope that we shall receive some clarification of them.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: During his interesting and forthcoming speech, the Minister referred to 1992 and the review committee. I do not threaten; I merely say, in the nicest possible way, that in November we may have yet another Adjournment debate—although, it is to be hoped, not at 3.30 am. The export and movement of works of art is a very important subject and the debate may be linked with my constituent, Lizzie from East Kirkton in Bathgate, who is a 340-million-year old reptile.
I address my remarks to the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who is to wind up the


debate, because our debate also concerns heritage. On 28 June, I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he would
publish the report, Strategic Roll-Forward Submission 1991–92, prepared by PE International plc
of Egham
concerning the Nature Conservancy Council".
The Minister replied:
This report is a management document commissioned to assist the NCC in preparing its proposed forward plans. It is not suitable for publication. In line with past practice, the Nature Conservancy Council's corporate plan for 1990–91 will be published later this summer."—[Official Report, 28 June 1990; Vol. 175, c. 316.]
As I understand it, the report exposes the way in which the NCC's permanent staffing level has been artificially depressed over the years. At present, the organisation's permanent staff complement is just over 800. That figure is artificially set by the Government, and bears little relation to the number of staff actually required to carry out the organisation's statutory functions. As a result, the NCC now employs an astonishing 400 temporary staff, at least half of whom are doing jobs that are permanent in all but name.
The report shows that the aggregate number of permanent staff required by the new bodies if they are to operate at the present—the NCC—level of output will be almost 1,200. That is no less than 50 per cent. above the current figure employed by the NCC. The report said that staffing levels required to deliver
the enhanced conservation which it is believed will be essential to tackle issues within the decade to come"—
in other words, what is actually needed to do the job properly—will involve an increase of more than 100 per cent. in permanent staff, from 810 to 1,652.
As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I am perhaps more entitled than anyone to ask whether the break-up of the NCC is really sensible and what it will cost. I think that it was done for the worst possible internal Scottish reasons. Now that the bill has been presented, and in terms of efficency, I seek some comment on that.
On museums, I want to register my sadness at the admission figures for the science museum. In 1983, there were 4,784,000 admissions. In 1984, the figure was 4,510,000. In 1985, it was 4,607,000. In 1986, it was 4,824,000. In 1987, it was 4,732,000. For years, it was just under the 5 million mark. But in 1988, the figure fell to 3,861,000 and in 1989 to 2,607,000. Is that what museum charges have done? The sense of wonder experienced by the very young on a visit to the science museum—either with school parties or with their parents—is of value.
I come now to the natural history museum. I am not saying just that palaeontology is important for its own sake, which it is. The lessons of the past tell a chilling tale about the warming of the future. I do not think that anyone outside the natural history museum—in Government or in the universities—is producing the long-term data that we need in some areas. Global climate change has occurred before, but not at the rate at which the earth's climate seems to be shifting today. It is crucial to be able to look at the past to understand the present trends in climate change. Only from that knowledge can successful strategies for dealing with future changes come. Scholars at the natural history museum are not engaged in some hypothetical calculation of what might happen; they are observing that actually happened. Incidentally, I am

speaking from nobody's brief. I am expressing my view, distilled from visits and from conversations with other scientists.
An uphill battle is being fought in Kensington and the Smithsonian, but the appreciation of what earth system history can offer is better than it was a year ago. Earth system history is the study of the geological and historical record. Fossils can be used to test predictions of global climate models. They can be used to assess changes in diversity and ecological structure. Museum scientists are piecing together clues about ancient ecosystems. For example, uniquely in the world as far as I know, Kensington and the Smithsonian are pioneering palaeoecology and are pulling together data from all over the world as part of the evolution of the terrestrial ecosystems programme. The data lets us see the patterns in changing ecosystems and is the basis for assessing how the current global change will affect life on earth. That is topical and important now.
I want to ask certain precise questions. If palaeobotany was cut, as proposed in the corporate plan, what would happen to research on the unique Jurassic rain forest flora of Yorkshire? That question has climate and rain forest connections. I hope that that will be one of the questions that the Minister will put to Sir Walter Bodmer when he sees him.
The Minister might also ask Sir Walter, if palaeobotany is cut as proposed in the corporate plan, what will happen to research and collaboration with Spanish colleagues on climatic changes in the Permian period based on world wide distribution of plants? The Permian period was about 220 million years ago and followed a period of extensive glaciation. This present period today follows extensive glaciation, and research on the Permian period is highly relevant to what might happen in the future.
The Minister has drawn attention to an increase in Government funding for the natural history museum of 12.8 per cent. in real terms over the past 10 years. For the running costs as opposed to building costs, which is the only component at all relevant to the museum's scientific work, the figure for 1979–80 in present day terms was £14.062 million and for 1989–90 was £14.069 million. How can it therefore be claimed that Government expenditure on science has risen at all significantly?
If the Minister meets Sir Walter Bodmer, I hope that he will meet representatives of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists. That is important.
I received a letter from Professor Boulter of the International Organisation of Palaeobotany. He wrote:
At our recent meeting in Frankfurt am Main it was noted that:

1 fossil plants are the source of oil, bituminous coal and browncoal
2 there is growing international concern about the effects of these fossils on the world environment
3 eastern Europe relies heavily on browncoal for energy and this has caused very bad pollution after 40 years of irresponsibility. Our view is that the study of fossil plants is a central part of the scientific investigations needed on the effect of fossil fuels on the international environment."

Professor Boulter was writing on behalf of his executive committee.
I have a letter from the Soviet Union which states:
Soviet Palaeobotanists constantly apply to the Palaeobotany Section of the Natural History Museum for help. Only in 1989–90 two of us were specially sent on a mission to the Section for the study of stored collections.


That was a long letter about the museum's value in Russia.
I have another letter to Sir Walter Bodmer from Frankfurt which states:
This international meeting of some 120 palaeobotanists from 25 countries wishes to urge upon you and your fellow trustees our deep concern.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dalyell: I have made my point.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It is obvious that three more hon. Members wish to speak. We must begin the winding-up speeches at 9.30 pm. I will now relax the time limit. However, I hope that those hon. Members I call will use their common sense and divide the time reasonably sensibly among themselves.

Mr. Michael Colvin: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Once again, he characteristically asked the kind of precise questions that invariably send Parliamentary Private Secretaries scurrying to the Box to find the answers. I am glad to state that this evening the only reason why the PPS scurried out was to confirm that the score between England and Germany was 1:1. That was indeed good news.
I subscribe to the view that the pent-up passion, venom and invective that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) inflicted on us was hollow, slightly phoney and did not really ring true from such a thoroughly nice guy. It seemed to be an attempt by a decent person to placate the left wing of his party. The hon. Gentleman spent much of his time pouring scorn on the Government's policy, but he had little to say about the policies of a Labour Government if they were ever to be elected. He simply said that there would be a return to centralised state direction. There would be little freedom of choice.

Mr. Fisher: Obviously the hon. Gentleman was not listening to my three substantial commitments—an integrated ministry, a statutory responsibility on local authorities and a cross-departmental cultural policy. All those are novel and very far reaching. The most important and significant of those proposals was a statutory responsibility on local authorities. Far from being a centralised plan, that is a development of cultural and arts policy that grows up from the roots of our society differently in every area and district of our society. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge his mistake. It is the opposite of a central, top down system—it is a bottom up system.

Mr. Colvin: That is not good enough. It is a well-known trick in this place for hon. Members to say the exact opposite of what are really the facts. Under Labour, there would be centralised direction and little freedom of choice.
That somewhat out-dated socialist dogma on the arts is extraordinary when we consider what has been happening in eastern Europe. In eastern Europe the people who have been prominent in bringing about the reforms which we are all delighted to see have been prominent in the arts world. Those people have taken the lead in rejecting the centralised dogma which the hon. Gentleman is trying to

put forward as Labour party policy. Those people in eastern Europe believe that freedom of choice is important. The arts world and the Conservative party believe that it is important, but the Labour party does not share that view.
It seems to be a long time since my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts and I sat together in his office the morning after his appointment in 1985.

Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Colvin: On this subject?

Mr. Buchan: Yes, I think so. I am a slow thinker so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
The hon. Gentleman was talking about freedom of choice. Can we distinguish between the freedom of choice of someone living in a cardboard box under Waterloo bridge and Peter Palumbo when it comes to choosing who will get to the Royal Opera house?

Mr. Colvin: That is an irrelevant question, although it may be relevant to a debate about homelessness such as we had yesterday. It is not a relevant question for an arts debate, although I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
As I was saying, I sat in my right hon. Friend the Minister's office the morning after he became Minister trying to find encouraging press cuttings about his appointment. I shall not embarrass my right hon. Friend by recalling some of the comments. The Daily Telegraph, which normally gets things right, said that my right hon. Friend had a liking for jazz, which was all very well, but it was hardly a qualification for handling the multi-million pound arts budget or the people involved in the arts. One of the problems in the arts world is that we seem to have to contend with as many prima donnas off stage as on stage.
My right hon. Friend the Minister was no artist when he was first appointed, but I gather that he has now taken up his paintbox. I am delighted to know that. He was a diplomat with distinguished service in the Foreign Office. Obviously, that diplomacy has worked in the arts. We now see how wrong all those press reports were. My right hon. Friend is the longest serving Minister for the Arts and has earned credit from all hon. Members and others who are interested in the arts. He has managed to deliver more money, much more encouragement and, what is more, better management through the three-year rolling programme of funding that he was able to introduce. He has given a lead, and the arts world has responded.
Much has been said about the amount that the Government are now spending. I shall not reiterate remarks about the 48 per cent. increase, and so on, but that is good news. However, it raises the point that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central raised when he got at me for suggesting in a question the other day that Conservative Members are still regarded as philistine. That sent me off to the Library to try to confirm what I had meant. We probably use the term philistine too often. I was able to confirm that Matthew Arnold first coined and popularised the phrase about those who opposed innovations in the arts. That is hardly a description of the Conservative party's arts policy.
The Chambers encyclopaedia stated that the Philistines were an aggressive, militant people, highly civilised and bearers of agriculture and commerce. That description comes slightly closer to myself. Matthew Arnold, in his


analysis of society, divided society into aristocrats, the middle classes and the people. He referred to the aristocrats as barbarians, the middle classes as philistines—I suppose that all hon. Members would be in that category—and the people as just the populace.
Leslie Stephen probably got it right when he said: Philistine—A term of contempt applied by prigs to the rest of their species.
We want to hear no more about Philistines.

Mr. Fisher: You raised it.

Mr. Colvin: I shall not raise it again—I promise.
There is a popular misconception that Labour Members are big spenders on the arts and that Conservative Members are tight-fisted. Socialist Governments tend to be big spenders, but usually on the wrong things. Conservative Governments, through good management and caution, have created the climate in which people are encouraged to invest their money and, in return, make profits on which they pay taxes. Therefore, more general national wealth is created and there is more out of which to fund an additional arts policy. That is precisely what has happened under this Government and under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Minister.
I now refer to a matter that has been touched on by only one other hon. Member—the role of local government in the arts. Support and funding for the arts is a plural business. Central Government spend a lot. Consumer spending is probably the biggest component of spending on the arts. Sponsorship—private and commercial—is also important. Funnily enough, however, local government spends more on the arts than the national Government do. That has always been so, although it is extremely difficult to analyse and put a precise figure on it.
Local government arts spending depends on supportive county, district and sometimes even parish councils creating the right environment. They have a great deal to do. They are probably closest to the grass roots and are able to target expenditure. There is no doubt that, in targeting expenditure, we often improve the quality of expenditure rather than the quantity. With the introduction of the community charge, local authorities will be far more accountable to their electorates, so it will be interesting to see the effect on present local authority art budgets and expenditure.
I have referred to plural funding. A local council often takes the initiative and is the catalyst which provides the pump-priming money that gets other things happening locally, but it is usually supported by its regional arts authority. It gives the stamp of approval to the local effort and helps other providers of resources to rally round, particularly at local level. Business sponsors have much to do and often finish up as the underwriters of local arts endeavours. They rather than local government become the funders of last resort. I do not think that it is right that councils should pick up the tab when there are failures.
An important role for local government is to help with the local arts infrastructure. That would leave artists to their own artistic endeavours. Local councils can often do that in kind rather than in cash. They can help with office overheads by providing, say, a room in a local museum for an arts director from which to operate, some rent-free accommodation, car park spaces for staff, and so on. Silly little things such as that can mean so much when a small artistic movement is afoot. Local directors' salaries could

be paid by a local authority. The important thing is that local authorities must put the arts on their agendas, but they often do not. Too many local authorities have no arts policies and no arts strategies.

Mr. Fisher: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a most unusual speech. I absolutely concur with him. It is a long time since hon. Members have heard a Conservative Back-Bench Member speak persuasively and passionately in favour of local authorities and the arts. Do I take it that he supports my point? Does he support a statutory responsibility on local authorities for developing arts policies and for making arts provisions at a local level in response to local needs? That is the Labour party's policy. May we take it that the hon. Gentleman supports it?

Mr. Colvin: I am a firm believer in voluntarism rather than compulsion. I am a firm believer in freedom of choice and in the voice of the electorate. If people in a locality want more to be done about the arts, they will bring pressure to bear on their councillors because, thanks to the introduction of the community charge, their councillors are now much more accountable to the electors than ever before. That is how we shall see things happen. It should not be the heavy hand of Government saying to the local authorities, "You will do that," because in the past central Government have spent too much time saying to local government, "You will do this and you will do that," but have then not provided the wherewithal to enable the local councils to do what central Government have instructed them to do. Therefore, although I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's whole philosophy, we nevertheless agree about the importance of local government taking a lead in local arts endeavours.
The expansion of the arts in the regions, which was originally envisaged in the "Glory of the Garden" strategy, is all about developments outside the London arts hothouse. However, in welcoming my right hon. Friend's decisions on the Wilding review, my own regional arts association, Southern Arts, has said that it believes that "improved resources" will be the "acid test" of my right hon. Friend's reforms. Southern Arts has stated that it has
consistently received less grant per head of population from the Arts Council than any other RAA—43p per head in 1990–91 against a national average of 69p".
It continued:
This anomaly arises from the historic basis on which the Arts Council funds the RAA's and is acknowledged both in the Wilding Review and, more recently, in the National Audit Office report on government arts funding. Southern arts believes that a determined effort must be made now to correct imbalances and to rationalise the allocation of funds to the new Regional Arts Boards as part of the implementation of the Minister's reforms.
I concur with that. However, one must note that the Arts Council's grants to the regional arts authorities have doubled in real terms since 1979 and now stand at £33 million.
The House will ask why, if the regional arts associations—Southern Arts, for example—are so starved of money, the arts in my county of Hampshire are booming. The answer is that some very good initiatives have been taken by the local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts has been to my constituency and seen one such initiative in Romsey, where the Romsey amateur operatic and dramatic society has done great things to establish a theatre and now has a thriving triennial arts festival under the chairmanship of the redoubtable Mrs. Pam Gale. My


right hon. Friend then visited Andover, where I live, and saw what has been done by the Andover arts festival, which is now in its sixth year, under the direction of Mr. Digby Littlewood. Both those arts festivals have received some help from Test Valley borough council, which has now begun to develop an arts strategy for the whole district.
Those are just two examples of what is happening nationwide. There are now more than 600 arts festivals nationwide which have a professional performing element, and many thousands of others are run on an amateur basis.
In conclusion, I remind the House that the latest edition of "Social Trends" stated:
Writers, artists and intellectuals—professionals not generally reckoned friendly towards Mrs. Margaret Thatcher—have been the biggest beneficiaries of her years in power…
Compared with other groups they saw their real earnings increase between 1979 and 1986 by nearly 30 per cent. During the last Labour government, their earnings fell.
Does that say it all? No, it does not. The real beneficiaries are those whom we represent—what Matthew Arnold called the "populace". When we say that life is better under the Conservatives, we mean that the quality of life is better. It is the flowering of the arts under this Government that has done so much to improve that quality and to enrich people's lives.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I did not expect to be in the House today, but I had to come down because of this debate on the arts. I am afraid that I shall leave the House for a week or so immediately afterwards.
I want to add to the paean of praise that has been given to the Minister. I have grown to be very fond of the right hon. Gentleman and I like him. He has done his very best for the arts in this country. He has listened to what has been said in some of our policy documents and he has borrowed from them. I praise him for that. The difficulty is that he cannot operate a sole hand. He is a relatively progressive Minister in a philistine Government—if I may be forgiven for using the word "philistine". That has been his problem. However, we must congratulate him on what he has achieved against the background of an appalling Government. Instead of being able to say, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant: you have led the country forward", I believe that the Minister has been more of a bulwark to prevent the development of philistinism than being in the vanguard and leading us forward.
Perhaps it is the nature of his job in the Government, but I am afraid that the Minister has had to follow some of their ideological characteristics. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said that he could not consider the introduction of charges for museums and galleries to be separate from the prevailing ethos of the Government. He is quite right and history bears him out.
The first time that we introduced charges for national galleries since the war was when the present Prime Minister was Secretary of State for Education. She did not really understand what we were talking about. I was the shadow spokesman for Scotland, but on that issue I also dealt with England and Wales. I remember the Minister

for the Arts, Lord Eccles—who Lord Crawford and Balcarres always described as "Lord Shekels"—being reported as saying that Mr. Buchan apparently would like us to go into museums and galleries to get out of the rain. I replied that I could not think of a better place to shelter from the rain than a museum or art gallery.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough was entirely right, and his point was scientifically endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who spoke about the importance of palaeontology in defending the natural history museum. He spoke about the palaeontologists currently working in the natural history museum, but I am concerned about future palaeontologists.
I do not believe that any kid wakes up one day and says, "When I grow up I want to be a palaeontologist". That does not happen, but what can happen is that a kid goes to a museum and asks his dad, "What is that?" and his dad says, "That is a fossil. It is millions of years old." That might spark the youngster to become a palaeontologist. None of us knows what sparks off a child's interest and what adds to a young person's enthusiasm. It is a crime to put up a barrier to the accidental encountering of experience and knowledge, and it is monstrous that we should have encouraged and developed the habit of charging for museums and galleries. It is as bad as insisting on payment for education. At the moment that is only for the privileged. Let them have that privilege, but I hope that none of us today would argue that all children who attend school should pay a contribution. At least we have got past that. However, the Government have broken into that principle and we have seen the result. If we charged for education, half the kids would not get to school. Attendances have halved since the introduction of museum and gallery charges.

Mr. Flannery: My hon. Friend has made an important point. When the Minister spoke about freedom of choice, I used the example of an ordinary family coming to London and having to pay about £12 to get into a museum. That is not freedom of choice. If they do not have the money to do that they are excluded from education.

Mr. Buchan: That is an illustration of the problems that the Minister faces in dealing with the Government. He has learnt from his time in Government and from the people he has met and had discussions with over the years. Everyone seems to be in a valedictory mood. I hope that does not mean anything. I cannot imagine us getting a better Minister for the Arts out of the present Tory Government, so I hope that there was not too much valediction in the air. I hope that he sticks with it.
The Minister had three interesting things to say about the arts that I was delighted to hear. First, he mentioned freedom of speech. He should watch his back. If he keeps on saying such things he might be out on his ear very quickly. It has never been more true or more important now that there is increasing monopolisation and contraction of independent voices in the printed word. Three people now control more than 80 per cent. of the national press in Britain. There is not much freedom of speech there when only three people determine it. Incidentally, five people control 94 per cent. of the Sunday and daily national press. It is an appalling form of monopoly.
The arts, and broadcasting is one of the arts, matter because they are one of the bulwarks which support independence of communication. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was talking about the theatre at Stratford in east London and defending the often anti-establishment plays that are produced there as an antidote to the monopoly of communication by a few people in the press. I endorse his view that the arts are, above all, a weapon for freedom of expression. As the Minister said, it is no accident that some of the movements in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union have been led by the liberal intellectuals of the period—by writers and poets.
Shelley said that
poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.
A Scotsman said the same earlier and I am very fond of the quotation—hon. Members may remember my quoting it before. Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun said:
If a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws".
The arts—created by the singer, writer, dramatist and novelist—help to create a mood in which communication can take place. That is why, with the present press monopoly, the arts are so important.
When the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) talks his philistine gibberish, he demonstrates that he has not got over the threshold of understanding what we are talking about.
The second matter that the Minister referred to was excellence. Again, he surprised me, and I welcomed that, because he meant excellence not merely in the sense of performance ability, but in the sense of the ability to participate and appreciate. He recognised that we are dealing with a much wider spectrum than mere centres of excellence—a pretty awful term to use because it compartmentalises. The third aspect was the importance of availability and accessibility of the arts. I welcome the three important points that the Minister raised, and I do not imagine that any of his hon. Friends, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), could have made them.
I challenge what the Minister said about funding, as I have done before—and I still think that I am right. There has not been a major step forward. The last award, which came in the autumn, meant a 12.9 per cent. increase on last year's grant of £155 million to the Arts Council—to £175 million this year. However, the previous year, the update had been only 3.7 per cent. So the combined increase last year and the year before adds up to only 16.6 per cent., which is barely above the rate of inflation. In 1990–91 and 1991–92 the increase will be 4.5 per cent. and 3.8 per cent. respectively, but inflation is now running at 9.7 per cent., so the award will drop below the level of inflation.
I think that the Minister has heard of my argument for a three-year rolling programme and I remember that he criticised me for criticising the three-year uplift, on the grounds that I had argued for the same idea. But what I meant by a rolling programme was that each year one should fix a three-year rolling programme. One should not say in 1970, "This is the funding for the next three years." One should say, "This is the percentage increase over the next three years" and in the following year give the figures for the next five years, with the third year's figure changed if one wished. That way we would all know and anyone working on a project would know that they were getting a

sum, indexed against inflation, for three years so that they could plan ahead. Such a three-year grant would mean that activities would not be cut short in midstream.
If we adopted this system, and each year the percentage was shifted—perhaps we could write in a safeguard that the figures could not be cut by more than x per cent. in the third year—we would be giving some guarantees to the arts. That would not be much more expensive, but it would prevent this continual rundown and jolting, and planning could take place.
That is why I am anxious about what is happening to the museums and galleries. They are in a worse state than the Minister understands. For last year and this year a total of 15 per cent.—an average of 7.5 per cent.—has been provided. That is below the rate of inflation. But for 1990–91 and 1991–92 the figures are 4.9 per cent. and 4.7 per cent. respectively. There has therefore been no great leap forward in the protection of our museums and galleries, unless there has been a sudden shift that I do not know of. We still have a major crisis in the condition of our major national museums and galleries.
The Minister referred to broadcasting as being part of our arts. The Broadcasting Bill has been brought in by his colleagues in other Departments and has not helped in terms of quality and excellence that he referred to; nor has it helped in terms of the independence of communications. One person has been exempted from the restrictions of the Broadcasting Bill—Rupert Murdoch. Everyone else has faced restrictions in terms of nationality, and in the holdings that a newspaper proprietor may have. The Government have created a new class called non-domestic broadcasting by satellite, in which he is the only substantial proprietor and owner, so he will be exempted. That is what lunch at Chequers at Christmas has brought about. Good luck to him with the Prime Minister.
The hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—the Minister of State, Home Department—said that he recognised that the Broadcasting Bill would bring the service a notch or two below public service standards. The proposed new chairman of the Commission for Independent Television—George Russell—says that it will be equivalent to about 80 per cent. of the value of existing public service broadcasting. We are in for a tawdry future, and we cannot expect the best of public service broadcasting to continue to protect us against the monopoly and tawdriness of so much of our press.
The Minister has been helpful and generous in regard to Glasgow. Many of us pushed alongside him for Glasgow to be established as the European centre of culture for 1990, and we welcome that decision. There has been a substantial response in Glasgow. There have been more than 2,000 different events this year in Glasgow; there have been 15 different festivals, including Mayfest, the international jazz festival, the choral festival, the European early music festival, the folk festival—in which I am involved—the literary prize, the festival of Jewish culture, the women's festival and others. There has been an astonishing amount of activity. There have been 300 exhibitions, including those on Degas, Pissaro, Henry Moore, Stephen Campbell, Ken Curry, and contemporary work from Europe. There have been 1,200 different performances, and 1,000 local projects in schools, churches, synagogues, mosques and so on. Some 52 galleries have been used for exhibitions, and 38 venues have been used for performances in the city.
Much of that success will not depend only on the increases in ticket sales—which have been considerable; they are double last year's. Much of it will depend on what permanent developments come out of the events and exhibitions. We know that we will have the concert hall, and the development of the Tramway theatre.
As it happens, I was talking about the city of culture before the city of culture started. Discussions took place in a certain lady's flat in Athens, when we discussed the matter before she, Melina Mercouri, ever came forward with the concept. I was involved at the beginning—at the basement level—and was against it. My wife was for it, as was Melina Mercouri, and it was the latter who told me that we could not do it without Government funding. Although initially no Government funding was brought forward, there has now been £500,000.
These are the figures. Glasgow district council has put in £7.5 million, and Strathclyde regional council £12 million. Private sector sponsorship accounts for £4.5 million—that is about a fifth of the public sponsorship—and the Office of Arts and Libraries has put in only £500,000. It was not good enough that that decision of almost no Government support should have been made. I am grateful that the Minister managed to squeeze £500,000 out of this mean Government, but it is not sufficient.
There has been controversy in Glasgow about the arts, which I welcome, although I dislike the cause of this particular controversy: the appointment of a new keeper of social history in Glasgow. It is appalling that the present incumbent, Elspeth King, was not appointed. It has caused great dispute in Glasgow. I know of nothing like it. Those who say that the arts do not matter should look at the controversy that has been let loose in Glasgow. The Glasgow Herald has received more letters about the appointment of the new keeper of social history in Glasgow than on any other subject, including the poll tax. There have been more letters on the subject than were received even as a result of the letter writing campaigns that I or others initiated—for example, on peace. The response has been astonishing.
A new keeper has been appointed, but the leaders of Glasgow city council should redefine the job. The new keeper should be made responsible for outreach and development work in schools. Miss King, however, should remain in post to continue the brilliant work that she has done during the past 15 years on developing the people's palace in Glasgow as a palace of some fame in social history. It is known throughout Britain. I discovered a few months ago that it is also known in Australia, where Miss King has given a lead to other people on similar developments. Her role should be enhanced and she should be allowed to continue her work. Old hands here will recognise why I am using this opportunity to comment on what has happened to Miss King.

Mr. Tim Devlin: I am grateful, having sat through last year's arts debate and this one, to have been given a chance to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks). My region spends the highest amount per head on the arts in

England, so it is a shock to listen to my hon. Friend underrating the value of the arts. He puts me in mind of Goldsmith, who said:
When they talk'd of their Raphaels, Correggios, and stuff, He shifted his trumpet, and only took snuff.
In 1818 Victor Cousin coined the phrase "art for art's sake" while lecturing at the Sorbonne. It is sad that so often the arts are attacked as a drain on a society that is already hard pressed to provide the quantity and quality of services that are demanded by the modern consumer of the welfare state. It has also meant a reformulation of the value of the arts in society, a process which has been going on continuously since the establishment of the Office of Arts and Libraries and the Arts Council. In the last 10 years, however, the arts have flourished. The new funding arrangements—particularly the partnerships with private sponsors and local government—have led to refinements of the arguments for the arts and their role in society.
I wish to examine two particular areas in my contribution to the debate. First, I applaud the part that the arts are playing in the process of urban regeneration. I know that the Minister who is to reply to the debate has an interest in that subject. Secondly, I urge further encouragement of the arts as part of the productive society.
In 1987, our first pledge as a Government was to tackle the very serious problems of declining inner cities. The issue, some might say, has gone off the political agenda, but to my mind—representing, as I do, one of the areas concerned—it cannot go away until the problem is solved. That is what we are in the process of doing through the urban development corporations in Teesside, Tyneside, Trafford, the black country and elsewhere. These projects have achieved the most significant success where they have incorporated the arts.
The most dramatic transformation has already been alluded to by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) and others. Glasgow—this year's European city of culture—started with its "miles better" campaign and followed it up with the opening of the Burrell collection and the cleaning of its principal buildings. Critics might argue that the arts have no economic use, but when I visited Glasgow earlier this year, specifically to see the Burrell collection, I was impressed by the great range of cultural activities that were taking place, the many other good quality museums that were available and the obvious prosperity that tourism had generated.
Bradford is another surprise for the outsider. It has made startling progress centring around the "city of entertainment", which includes the national museum of photography, film and television and the Alhambra theatre, which has recently been restored. They are soon to be joined by the Indian collection of the Victoria and Albert museum.
In Liverpool, the northern Tate opened to receive 300,000 visitors in its first three months. I was particularly struck by the people of Birmingham's pride in their orchestra when I visited there on Saturday. I am told that theatres in Birmingham are packed every weekend and that Simon Rattle and the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra are held out by the ordinary people of Birmingham as the centrepiece of the city's culture, even though many of those boasting about that might never have been to a performance.
There is no doubt that the arts are a major revenue earner and employer. The Myerscough report said that 2.1 per cent. of the population work in the arts while tourists account for 42 per cent. of attendances at arts events in London. Tourism with an arts ingredient is worth £3.1 billion a year or 25 per cent. of total tourist earnings.
The Washington-based Urban Land Institute drew particular attention to the way in which arts can put the heart back into inner cities. It said:
A healthy central core—economically strong, lively at all hours, activity oriented, pedestrian focussed, containing a rich mixture of uses—now is perceived as key to the vigor of the city as a whole. A variety of economic and social forces have combined to change perceptions of the needs and goals for downtowns, and to bring public agencies in close alignment with the private and arts sectors.
One of the leading property developers in the United States, Michael Marston, said:
Real Estate projects that include the arts appropriately have the opportunity to offer commercial space that is unique, thereby achieving a highly desirable position in the marketplace. I personally feel that mixed-use projects including the arts have, over the longer run, stronger value appreciation potential than more standard forms of real estate development.
The Prime Minister expounded that message when speaking to the Royal Academy about the inner cities. She said of a city:
"It was only a real, true city when it also had libraries, art galleries, music, orchestras, choirs. You needed the whole of the arts to make the cities … The spirit of community, the spirit of feeling that life is not whole unless the arts are part of it, is returning.
I look forward to the extension of that work into new areas.
Speaking parochially for a moment, I hope that my constituency will one day be the site of a major flagship arts project. A substantial part of our local area is covered by the Teesside development corporation. It should listen to pleas for a major facility, perhaps a concert hall, theatre, national museum or other arts centre. I am pleased to note that knowledge of the disparity in funding between Teesside and Tyneside by Northern Arts led to a report on the future of the arts in Teessicle published by Northern Arts and the Teesside development corporation.
The point must be emphasised again and again that arts projects act as ambassadors for a city. The Cincinnati city orchestra has undoubtedly helped to attract investment to that city, and the same can be said of the Chicago symphony orchestra. Some people only visit Pitlochry in Scotland to attend its marvellous theatre. The Burrell collection is a marvellous ambassador for Glasgow. The northern Tate in Liverpool and the Royal Shakespeare Company of Tyneside have also attracted people to those cities. I believe that Teesside could be every bit as much a part of that success story. More than 3.2 million people live within 90 minutes drive of it and, from the end of this year, 40,000 sq ft of exhibition space will be available.
I hope that the Minister will heed calls to send out collections and part-collections from the basements of the national museums to places such as Teesside, so that people who do not have access to London can enjoy them.
The report that has been compiled on the future of the arts in Teesside is helpful, as it states that there should be a three-pronged strategy. First, that strategy should ensure that arts provision serves and reaches the population. Secondly, existing arts activities should be developed and the Cleveland arts economy should be expanded. Thirdly, new arts facilities and buildings should be developed to

enable the county to capitalise on regional, national and international opportunities. As ever when things are done in Teesside, the author tries not to offend anyone and enlist the support of the local Labour-controlled authority.
The Government have offended many people and challenged the local authority when it set up the development corporation, which has brought a spectacular amount of new investment to the area and unrivalled new opportunities for development. We should do the same again for the arts and reorder our priorities so that they are: the development of a city arts flagship project for Teesside, which will put it on the international map; develop existing efforts; widen participation and interest in the arts locally.
The arts have a vital role to play in the development of a productive economy. Sometimes, I fear that, having been a nation of shopkeepers, we have become one of moneybrokers, turning money around and making a profit, rather than adding value to objects. In the world of making things—I represent a manufacturing constituency—design is every bit as important as price and productive technique. Why then are no British manufacturers making a new design of sports car, whereas Japanese companies are launching several this year? Some 150 years ago, that problem was first highlighted by the national exhibition at Crystal Palace. Since then, trade has exacerbated the problem.
I hope that further encouragement will be given to the arts, especially design. I know that that is not specifically a matter for the Minister who is to reply, but I hope that he will emphasise the role of the visual arts and the part that they have to play in encouraging design.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: It is my lot to wind up for the Opposition at the precise moment that England is taking part in a penalty shoot-out, so I shall not he surprised if the attention of hon. Members lapses at times, especially when news reaches the Chamber.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said, we welcome the opportunity to debate not only the arts but our heritage. My hon. Friend is always pressing for more time to debate such matters. From his opening speech, it was obvious that, in terms of his awareness of problems facing the arts and policy development, my hon. Friend has considerable clout. I am sure that if Ministers do not share his priorities, they must respect his contributions to these debates.
I make no claim to be an expert on the arts. I have viewed the debate as a consumer, and have listened to what has been said by people with greater expertise. However, having spent several academic years studying economic and social history, I have more than a passing interest in our heritage and, more importantly, as a parent, I am extremely concerned that we place a proper value on the quality of life that we create for future generations.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House praised institutions from the natural history museum to cathedrals. Most of them exist for our benefit only because of the investment and decisions made by past generations. We are under an obligation to be equally far-sighted in our treatment of our heritage and our investment in the arts today.
I have listened carefully to most of the speeches this evening, and found them—especially those of my hon.


Friends—interesting and enjoyable and, at times, a useful education. However, if I am totally honest, I would rather have spent the past two hours watching the World cup match on television, especially at 8.34 pm, when the sound of the cheer reached the Chamber. I mean no disrespect to my colleagues, but I hope that other hon. Members share my feeling that there is a clash of interests this evening. It is strange that the Government should schedule a debate on the arts and heritage so that it clashes with what, judging by the small part of it that I saw, is an extremely good display of art. Football is an important element in our heritage and I hope that Ministers appreciate that it is not just a sport but a cultural event. Anyone who doubts that should stand in the terraces or sit in the stand at a football match and listen to the wry humour. I know that many Conservative Members are somewhat prejudiced against football but, as I say, it is part of our cultural background and heritage.
I regret the clash of events. Perhaps this debate should have been scheduled for tomorrow and we could have had a Scottish debate this evening. When I say that, I mean no disrespect to Scottish Members. I was born in Scotland and have mixed loyalties—no doubt the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) will be interested to know that. Tempting though it is, I do not want to hijack the debate into a discussion on football. Some of us could get carried away in the manner of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) when he described Roger Milla. I agree that Roger Milla is extremely artistic. The hon. Gentleman did not talk about poetry in motion, but if we are not careful we could find ourselves straying down that path. I do not want to do that.
I should like to deal with the definitions that have been used in the debate. It is right that hon. Members should debate great works of art, orchestras, theatres, fine palaces, great houses and the wonderful architectural achievements of the past. It is important to preserve those things and support the fine arts generally because of the role that they play in a civilised society. However, there is another side which is in danger of being neglected or considered to be of secondary importance in our debates. There is a wider definition of the arts and heritage, and I hope that in future debates it will move nearer to the centre of the stage.
My heritage does not have its roots in big houses and palaces, although I understand that my Scottish grandmother was in service in one fine big house. My heritage, and that of most people, is working-class life. It is a heritage of terraced houses, two up, two down and no bathroom, and of parents and grandparents who worked in mills, factories and mines. We must foster the understanding that those things are part of our heritage. In literature, such things are often glamorised but we must get the balance right.
Whatever the balance between glamour and reality, it is important to ask the Government what they are doing to make the young people of today aware of that part of their heritage. Of course we want to preserve the fine heritage and the houses and palaces, but just as history should not teach only about kings and queens, so, in discussing our heritage, we should not fall into the trap of talking only about castles and palaces.
I note that, like me, the Minister is somewhat disturbed and thrown off course by the bad news that has just reached the Chamber about the World cup match. We all commiserate with those who have worked so hard for a better result. There seemed to be a great deal of unfairness in many of the results, and I am sure that we all congratulate the England team on its performance and regret that the final outcome was not more satisfactory.

Mr. Fisher: Football is part of our heritage.

Mrs. Taylor: I dealt with that when my hon. Friend was out of the Chamber.
The Minister for the Environment and Countryside is a northern Member. I should like to hear what he is doing to ensure that the heritage of the majority gets proper recognition. An increasing number of small industrial museums are being established, very often with little or no Government assistance, and the Minister's action is hindering the development of some of those museums.
Adjacent to my own constituency is the Caphouse mining museum. It was once a real colliery, and when it was due to close it was turned into a museum with the help of West Yorkshire county council, Kirklees and Wakefield district councils, and some EC funding—but no Government money. When the Government abolished county councils, the financial burden of supporting that museum increased. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 makes it difficult for local authorities to subsidise and maintain the museum, because it is not an arm's length company. There is now concern about its future.
The museum's trustees have established a new governing body to attract sponsorship. The museum should serve as a showpiece of mining in an area of declining mining activity, but instead of helping, the Government introduced legislation that could cripple that project. The Minister's delay in introducing regulations is increasing uncertainty. I hope that the Minister for the Environment and Countryside will consider the possible consequences. The museum is used by thousands of children each year, who at small cost can visit a live pit—not an artificial creation. I suggest that that museum is more relevant to the background and heritage of families in my constituency than many of the great halls and other places that receive a subsidy.
I do not follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington in saying that there is no place for subsidies in respect of fine buildings, but I do not believe that they have an exclusive right to them. I hope that the Minister for the Arts will take on board the need to broaden the definition of heritage, as should the Minister for the Environment and Countryside.
Another part of our heritage is our natural landscape, and public enjoyment and appreciation of the countryside. As I have always lived in northern towns but in sight of open country, it is an aspect of our heritage that I particularly value. It is all too easy to take for granted our countryside and open spaces, but working in Westminster all week is a good counter to any temptation to fall into that trap. I only feel sorry for right hon. and hon. Members whose constituencies are not as attractive as mine. I am sure that the Minister for the Environment and Countryside agrees, because his constituency is in an extremely attractive part of the country.
Ministers have a fundamental conflict between the need to protect such areas and their dogma of non-interference


and belief that market forces should rule. That may be why not even one piece of landscape has been designated under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. What does the Minister propose to do in respect of the Common Land Forum's recommendation? The Minister for the Environment and Countryside recently supported family rambling day to demonstrate his solidarity with the ramblers' demands for access to the countryside. However, I understand that his walk a week last Sunday was rained off. We on the other side of Yorkshire are made of sterner stuff, and we went ahead. Nevertheless, the Minister's support was welcome.
He is somewhat rare, in that he urges local authorities to spend extra money on establishing and encouraging more rights of way and signposts. I hope that he can square that with poll tax capping.
What does the Minister intend to do in respect of the Government's - promise in the Conservative party manifesto in May 1987:
We will legislate to safeguard common land on the basis of the Common Land Forum."?
Had we time, I would recount all the occasions on which Ministers have repeated the guarantee that legislation of that kind was about to be introduced. We are told that the Government intend to introduce a comprehensive Bill at a suitable opportunity when parliamentary time permits, and that it will be based loosely on relevant reports. We have had a little slippage on occasions, when we have been told that it will take a little time. We were told by the Minister of State in February that legislation would be coming soon. In March he said that a statement was expected sooner rather than later. At the beginning of April, he said that he expected a further statement about the Government's intention within a few weeks. Later that month, he said that a further statement of the Government's intentions would be made soon.

Mr. Fisher: We are getting closer.

Mrs. Taylor: As my hon. Friend says, we are getting closer. We have been told for three years that a statement was coming. It would be helpful to have an indication of the Government's intentions this evening. If we do not, we can conclude only that the Government intend to renege on their past promises.
Time is short. The debate has been varied and it has concentrated, perhaps wrongly, more on arts issues than on heritage issues. I hope that in future hon. Members on both sides of the House will have more time to deal with the whole wealth of issues that have been touched on this evening.

Mr. David Lightbown (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): On this important day.

Mrs. Taylor: Yes, on this important day, as the Government Whip, who usually does not speak, has pointed out. It is a black day for English football. I hope that hon. Members will understand the need to appreciate and protect our arts and heritage, including football. Then perhaps we will have learnt something from today's events.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): Like the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), I am mortified at the England result. A bright, efficient civil servant managed to put into my hand the amazing statistic that more people go to theatre, opera

and dance performances than to football matches. I am beginning to wonder whether that helps the current position.
I say to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and the hon. Member for Dewsbury—both of whom have a fondness for the city of Manchester—that there is some consolation in what happened at lunchtime today, when I had the privilege of attending a function which was also attended by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher)—

Mr. Fisher: Distinguished Member.

Mr. Trippier: Yes, the distinguished Member. I had the privilege of awarding the museum of the year award, which was jointly won not only by the imperial war museum, which could be expected and was richly deserved, but by the Manchester museum of industry and science, so I hope that there will be dancing in the streets of my favourite city.
The richness and the diversity of Britain's heritage is not in doubt. After six hours of debate, I am not in much doubt about the richness and diversity of the views of hon. Members on the subject—perhaps more the richness of the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) than the diversity of the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).
Some of the arguments, especially those of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, Central, were like parts of England's heritage—very old. Unfortunately, his ideas are in nothing like such good condition as much of the English heritage. The difference is that the owners of Britain's great art and heritage care deeply about their possessions and ensure that they are looked after. I am afraid that the hon. Member does not make the same effort with his opinions. He does not care what he says, whether it is true or even whether it makes sense. That is why he found himself in a terrible muddle in linking together the responsibility for municipal parks, which he should know by now come under local authorities, and for the royal parks, which are the responsibility of my Department.

Mr. Fisher: No.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the royal parks, as the record will show.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the document "Looking to the Future", on which he was quizzed by my hon. Friends who sought to extract a more accurate figure or estimate of what it would cost a future Labour Government to implement the policy. The hon. Gentleman ducked the question. I will gladly allow him to intervene on this precise matter if he can tell the House the cost of implementing these proposals in terms of the arts and heritage.

Mr. Fisher: I wish to take up a previous point about the royal parks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no!"] Oh yes! The Minister referred to the royal parks. Does he approve of the royal parks banning the 300-year-old tradition of flying kites on Sundays in Kensington gardens? Does he feel that access to the royal parks should be widened rather than diminished in this way? Will he give the Government's view?

Mr. Trippier: We are going to get carried away one way or the other about the flying of kites. The hon. Gentleman


has been flying a few during this debate. I agree that there should be wider access to public parks and to royal parks wherever possible.
The hon. Gentleman said about five times in his speech that he wanted a national audit. I give him notice that the Government are putting the Labour party and its policy document under audit. Every pledge that the hon. Gentleman made today will be carefully and closely examined and costed. Given that the first salvo by the Leader of the Opposition into this difficult territory was his statement that the first two benefits that the Labour party would introduce in the unlikely event of its ever being elected would cost £2 billion, and given that everyone has now confirmed that it will be at least £3.5 billion, I assure the House—

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Trippier: No, I will not.

Mrs. Taylor: rose—

Mr. Trippier: All right, I give way.

Mrs. Taylor: The Minister is uncharacteristically generous. He seems to be proving yet again that he belongs to the Maradona school of drama—whenever he is under attack, he does the parliamentary equivalent of rolling over three times and shouting "Foul."
The Minister said that all these plans will be audited. If it is so easy to audit the Labour party's policy, why is it proving so difficult for the Department to audit its position and all that has happened so far? Who will pay for the audit—the Government or the Conservative party?

Mr. Trippier: I assure the hon. Lady, if she did not already know, that the Government are consistently audited. Every Department of state is subjected to rigorous scrutiny by the National Audit Office and various Select Committees. We need to turn the attention of the Select Committees to the Labour party.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central went on to mislead the House once again—unintentionally, I am sure—by saying that the Government had not done anything to help tackle the problem experienced with the Rose theatre site.

Mr. Fisher: rose—

Mr. Trippier: I am sorry, but you have had your opportunity. You made a very long speech. I have a short time in which to respond. You must not get so thin skinned about the fact that I might be picking you up on one or two points.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am "you".

Mr. Trippier: The sum of £1 million was given to allow the extra time for the redesign of the office block on the Rose theatre site, so the hon. Gentleman's comment was not accurate.
To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about areas of archaeological importance—an important matter—

Mr. Fisher: rose—

Mr. Trippier: —I expect to announce later this month—

Mr.Fisher: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Mr. Trippier: I give way.

Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He made a serious accusation that I had misled the House, and it is important to put the record straight. The help has not been given to the Rose Theatre Trust. Indeed, the Government are now saying that it will have to pay the full legal costs. They have given just £2,000 towards the legal costs and they say that the Rose Theatre Trust will have to pay the rest. Is that really the Government's attitude towards this important archaeological site?

Mr. Trippier: In the unlikely event of the hon. Gentleman being a Minister, would he strongly advocate that the Government should help with the legal costs of an organisation that brings a case in that way? Is he seriously suggesting that?
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey made a fair point. I expect to announce later this month my conclusions on the operation and effectiveness of statutory areas of archaeological importance following the review and advice provided by English Heritage. As to the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the Museum of London's grant, English Heritage is discussing with the Museum of London and other interested parties the provision of an archaeological survey in London, which primarily is a matter for that body.
In his excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts spoke of Government policy on the arts. I intend to concentrate my remarks on the subjects for which the Department of the Environment is responsible.
We live surrounded by a rich legacy of the past. Castles, palaces, stately homes, archaeological remains and attractive villages and towns serve to remind us of our proud history as a land of culture, commerce and history. Like the living arts and the treasures of our museums and galleries, the built heritage contributes vitally to the quality of life. A sense of history and stewardship helps to weld our society together.
In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South referred to the nation's concern for our cathedrals. I might share his views, and I assure him that we hope to address that matter in the forthcoming White Paper, which should be launched in the autumn.
Our generation values the built heritage more than any previous generation and in recent years, under a Government who have encouraged people to think and act for themselves, there has been a marked increase in that trend. It is significant, for example, that the National Trust has doubled its membership in the past 10 years to almost 2 million. The Labour party's analysis of art and heritage policy is still fundamentally corporatist and bureaucratic. The individual's instinctive feeling for an association with the past has no place in Labour party policy. One cannot legislate for stewardship, but if it were possible the party would try.
The Government's role lies not in drawing up grand plans—that is an absurd notion. The fabric of our nation was laid long before we politicians came on the scene and will certainly be there long after. What continues are the bonds formed by an individual's pride in his nation's history and landmarks. We should cherish the values of


ownership and stewardship. The Government's policy is to provide the framework in which those values are allowed to flourish.
I wish to identify five separate strands to that policy. First, the Government and their agencies aim to set standards of excellence in the care of properties in their ownership or guardianship. Secondly, we have an excellent system for identifying and recording the best of our built heritage. Thirdly, we aim to harness the energy and resources of the private and voluntary sectors in conserving the heritage, backed where necessary with financial assistance from public funds to help meet the extra cost of maintaining and restoring heritage properties. Fourthly, the Government seek to promote greater understanding and enjoyment of the heritage and to encourage wider public participation. Last, but not least, we have a mature and effective legislative system to protect and preserve the heritage.
In those, and in other matters, the Government and their agencies can set an example and give a lead. English Heritage manages 400 castles, abbeys, historic houses and other sites and properties in England, including such famous sites as Stonehenge, Dover castle, Osborne house and Hadrian's wall. This year, it is spending almost £34 million from a total grant in aid of £78.5 million on maintaining, repairing, displaying and marketing those properties. The historic royal palaces agency was set up as an executive agency within my Department in October last year. It has 350 staff and a budget of about £20 million.

Mr. Fisher: Give the figures.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman keeps asking me to give him figures, but he does not like the figures when I give them. The agency is headed by the first chief executive to have been recruited from an agency outside the civil service.
I have spoken of the cultural value of the built heritage to both our own and future generations, but heritage is also good business and contributes substantially to a tourist industry worth about £19 billion in total. That point was effectively made by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). Tourism is the strongest and largest growth sector in the whole of the British economy, creating a net increase of about 50,000 jobs year by year. I accept that there can sometimes be a conflict between heritage and tourism, although it seems to me that those who oppose such tourism would prefer people to send their money in a sealed envelope through the post rather than turning up in person. We must realise that we attract an enormous number of overseas visitors who come here to appreciate our heritage—I hardly think that they come here for our climate.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Mr. Paul Howard

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown].

10 pm

Mr. Jack Thompson: I am grateful to have the opportunity to introduce this Adjournment debate, even if this evening's experiences outside the House have not been pleasant. Having watched the match, I recommend that we do not go into extra time in the House tonight. I sympathise with you, Mr. Speaker, and with the Minister. We have to stay a little longer, despite the disappointing events outside.
Parliament is concerned with individual rights, and the case to which I shall refer has a bearing on those rights. The fact that we are debating it reflects the significance of the parliamentary system in Britain. I regret that I have had to seek an Adjournment debate to bring it to the attention of the House, because for two years now I have been trying to solve the problem with the Ministry of Defence and the Army medical authorities, but a response to my clear requests for information has not been forthcoming.
A constituent of mine, Paul Howard, was given a temporary discharge from the Scottish division on 28 December 1985. I have with me a copy of the relevant document which is entitled:
Certificate of discharge issued to a soldier discharged with less than six months service or discharged from type 'O' engagement.
The document lists his name, surname, army number and the place at which he enlisted. The service particulars on discharge specify that Paul Howard had served as a private and that his service on discharge was five months and 20 days, including 28 days on leave without pay before reporting for duty. The document states as the cause of his discharge:
Ceasing to fulfil Army medical standards.
His military conduct is described as
Exemplary assessed on five months' service.
The document is signed by the officer in charge of infantry and GSC manning, Imphal barracks, York.
The papers also include a temporary certificate of discharge or transfer to the reserve, which also gives his rank, number and name, and states that the cause o f his discharge was medical and that his military conduct was exemplary. That is the only information that has been made available about Paul Howard's discharge.
Paul Howard joined the Army on 5 August 1985. He underwent the normal medical examination required for those joining the armed forces and had a clean medical record. He was undertaking training with the Gordon Highlanders when he took ill and was transferred to the Royal Victoria infirmary in Edinburgh. He was diagnosed as having
urinary tract infection, contusions of the soft tissue in the lower back and contusions of the scalp.
Following his period in the Royal Victoria infirmary, a medical board held in November 1985 discharged him as
temporarily medically unfit.
Two appointments were made for Mr. Howard to see Dr. Bates, a consultant neurologist, but he was unable to keep the appointment. The Ministry said that that was his fault, but in fact he was a patient in Catterick military hospital which would not release him for the appointment. He was then requested to obtain, at his own expense,


reports from a neurologist and urologist. Mr. J. S. W. Feggetter, an eminent consultant urologist and a serving officer in the Territorial Army, was requested to examine him. Dr. David Bates, a consultant neurologist with the Northern regional health authority and a senior lecturer at the university of Newcastle, also examined Mr. Howard. I have copies of those reports and they suggest that there is nothing wrong with him. The Minister has also seen copies of the reports. Mr. Howard has a clean bill of health. Those examinations took place in February 1989 and the findings were supported as recently as March this year by Mr. Howard's general practitioner, Dr. Donald Irvine, who is a highly respected practitioner and a senior figure in national medical circles.
Since 1985, Paul Howard had been encouraged to believe that he would be allowed to re-enlist once his health situation was clarified. In his opinion and in mine, that clarification was forthcoming. However, in 1988 when he approached me, it was evident that that was not the case.
Despite evidence and correspondence between myself and three Under-Secretaries of State for Defence—the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) and the Earl of Arran—and a meeting with the hon. Member for Romford in his capacity as Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, I was unable to obtain the reasons why Mr. Howard was unable to re-enlist. All that I learnt, in a letter from the Earl of Arran of 5 April 1990, was that
Mr. Howard remains and will continue to remain below the minimum medical standards for service either with the regular or reserve forces.
The position with the reserve forces was confirmed when Mr. Howard's application to join the Territorial Army was rejected.
In a letter to me, Dr. Irvine—Mr. Howard's GP—wrote:
I have … made a careful re-exploration of his medical records … I can find no medical reason why he should not be accepted for service in the armed forces.
The Minister has a copy of that letter.
I raise this issue on the Floor of the House in an attempt to obtain two pieces of information. I am sorry that I have reached this point because until now the discussions between myself, my constituents and the Minister have been in private as would normally be the case.
First, on behalf of Dr. Irvine, I would like to have the medical reasons for Mr. Howard's temporary discharge in detail. Mr. Howard is still only temporarily discharged. If he has a medical condition that warrants investigation by Dr. Irvine, he at least should know the circumstances. Secondly, why has Mr. Howard not been given a permanent discharge which should indicate specifically the reasons for ending his Army career so abruptly?
Although finding civilian employment in my constituency is not easy at the moment, it is not helped by the mystery surrounding Mr. Howard's discharge. His attempts to seek civilian employment are being seriously hampered by the bureaucratic attitude of the Army's recruiting and medical departments.
Mr. Howard is the kind of young enthusiastic person our forces need. I applaud his persistence in trying to ferret out information from behind the closed doors of those two departments. He and I have both failed to do that. When

the Minister responds, I hope that he will finally come clean on behalf of the Ministry and explain why there has been a constant refusal to relieve the concerns of Mr. Howard about his health and his prospects in his attempts to resume his Army career and about the blight on his opportunities to take up a civilian career.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Michael Neubert): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) on his commitment to his constituency and, in particular, to his constituent Mr. Paul Howard. The hon. Gentleman has displayed great tenacity in pursuing his constituent's case. As he said, it is more than two years since he first entered into correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), now the Minister for Public Transport. The intensity of that correspondence increased with my arrival in December 1988 as Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, and the dialogue has continued at full flow since last August under the tenure of my successor, my noble Friend the present Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces.
A few words by way of preface on the general policy of the armed forces towards medical matters may be helpful. The House will of course appreciate the demanding and stressful physical nature of service in the armed forces and how important it is that service men and women should be medically fit to withstand the full rigours of the varied and exacting life that the services offer. Medical fitness gives confidence that they can then perform their role in peace and war. But it is also essential, in the interests of an individual, and of those with whom he or she works as a unit, that they do not fall prey to avoidable mishaps or injury. In this context, it is only fair to remind the House that the services can be, and often are, severely criticised when young men, particularly those undergoing arduous training, suffer serious injury.
The Army, therefore, like the other two services, places great emphasis on maintaining high medical standards of fitness for service. Particular care is taken on entry and again in the early stages of training.
The central system of medical classification operated by each of the three services lays down employability standards by which to measure an individual's medical fitness. The system is designed to provide a functional assessment of an individual's capacity to work and to assist in expressing the physical and mental attributes appropriate to the various roles that service personnel may be called upon to perform. The system also helps in determining the fitness of personnel to undertake certain postings. It is applied equally to all ranks of the three services, both male and female, including officers. It is that system by which Paul Howard was not only discharged from the Gordon Highlanders in 1985 but was refused re- enlistment at various times during the period that has elapsed since that date.
It is important to say at this point, in particular in relation to the general practitioner's report, that, although the system of medical classification is operated by service medical authorities and is a medical responsibility, the various arms of the services set the minimum standards


required for each of their services. Paul Howard was, therefore, medically assessed against the requirements of the infantry—in this case, the Gordon Highlanders.
It may be helpful if I too set out the history of Paul Howard's brief service as we have seen it during 1985 with the Gordon Highlanders.
Paul Howard first sought to enlist at the Army careers information office in Ashington, Northumberland. As is required of all potential recruits to the services, he had to undergo a pre-service medical examination. That took place on 22 March 1985, and was performed by a civilian medical practitioner working to military standards and regulations. Mr. Howard was advised that he would be examined again by a medical officer at the training unit within the first six days of service—the initial medical examination—and again at the conclusion of his basic training or the 16th week of training—the service medical examination. That comprehensive and well-tested procedure is designed expressly to expose, during training, obscure or dormant disabilities not evident in the pre-service medical examination. Mr. Howard reported for training at the Scottish Infantry depot and underwent his initial medical examination on 5 August 1985.
As the hon. Gentleman said, neither the pre-service nor initial medical examination showed any disabilities, and Mr. Howard revealed no history at that stage to show any medical reason why he should not be allowed to continue. Unfortunately, as we have heard, within six weeks of entry, he was taken ill and was admitted to Edinburgh royal infirmary, where he spent 20 days before being transferred to the medical reception station, Edinburgh, which he left on 5 October 1985. At that stage, a medical board was convened, and that board concluded that he was temporarily medically unfit and should be discharged. Just three days after his discharge from the medical reception station, he was readmitted to the royal infirmary with symptoms similar to those for which he had previously been an in-patient. He remained there for a further eight days.
During his time in hospital, he underwent a number of investigations and was also seen by a representative of the neurology department. He was then sent home on leave and, after having several similar attacks, did not return to barracks. Unfortunately, he was to return to hospital again on two more occasions before finally being transferred on 21 November 1985 to the Duchess of Kent's military hospital in Catterick, where he stayed until 26 November.
That same evening, following his release from the Duchess of Kent's military hospital, he reported himself to the accident and emergency department of the Edinburgh royal infirmary, complaining of further illness. He was examined once again and discharged to the care of the military authorities in order for him to follow up an appointment with a consultant in neurology at the Royal Victoria infirmary, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
In the light of his medical history during his very short time in the Army, Mr. Howard was given examinations which were to form the basis for a second medical board at the Duchess of Kent's military hospital because the Duchess of Kent's military hospital did not at that stage have access to the results of the first board.
The House should know that there has been some confusion in previous correspondence with the hon. Gentleman as to whether or not these medical boards did in fact take place, as his constituent was not himself

present. The hon. Gentleman has, however, been informed by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, in his letter of 30 November 1989, that it is not a pre-requisite for a patient to be present for a medical board. It is often the case that evidence is collated and subsequently examined in turn by board members, who then give their findings and make their recommendations. Before the second medical board could be approved, authority for discharge had been given on the basis of the conclusions of the first medical board.
In this case, Mr. Howard was assessed by the first medical board as being below retention standards, and he was finally discharged from the services on 28 December 1985. This was in accordance with Queen's regulations for the Army and because he could not fulfil Army medical requirements. The hon. Gentleman will know that he was found by the first medical board to be temporarily unfit for Army service. In retrospect, and in the light of later medical reports, including that of the second medical board, it would perhaps have been more appropriate to have discharged him as permanently unfit for Army service. Had he not already been discharged on the basis of the first board, that is what would have happened.
While I cannot go into the medical details of the case for reasons of medical confidentiality, it will be obvious from what I have said that Mr. Howard was subject to a number of medical examinations while in hospital. It is not open to me to discuss the nature of his illness, his treatment or the results of the medical investigations, because it is not our practice to disclose personal medical details except to other medical personnel with responsibility for the continued care of the patient. That does not mean there is anything to hide. The medical records in this case have already been made available to Mr. Howard's GP following the hon. Gentleman's meeting with me last July.
Since his discharge, Mr. Howard has been persistent in his attempts to rejoin the Army and latterly the Reserves. He has been seen by a number of medical practitioners, both service and civilian, including civilian specialists in urology and neurology, and his case has, as the House knows, been vigorously represented by the hon. Member for Wansbeck.
The hon. Gentleman has concentrated his attention on the grounds on which Paul Howard's repeated applications to re-enlist have been turned down. He and his constituent appear to suggest that the medical reasons which have consistently been cited are not the true reasons, and that some other reasons lie behind the decision. That is not so. The House will appreciate that, again, medical confidentiality prevents me from giving full details of the medical grounds on which we have declined to accept Mr. Howard's applications, or indeed the full extent of any advice received from the civilian consultants involved.
Nevertheless, in the light of the hon. Gentleman's initial representations, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering undertook in his letter of 30 April 1988 that the Army medical authorities would consider the case again on production of any favourable medical reports covering the period since his discharge to the present. After further correspondence, two reports from civilian urology and neurology consultants were then forwarded to me, as the then Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, with the hon. Gentleman's letter of 7 March 1989.
While those civilian reports were favourable, there remained a need for them to be considered by the Army


medical authorities alongside the service medical findings and service medical requirements. My letter of 22 March 1989, therefore, informed the hon. Gentleman that any application from Mr. Howard for re-enlistment would now be dealt with in the normal manner through the Army careers information office, Ashington. Unfortunately, the wrong impression was drawn from that letter, as the hon. Gentleman seems to have regarded it as some sort of guarantee that Mr. Howard would be able to rejoin his regiment, and that the Army medical authorities were now satisfied with the medical reports. I re-emphasise to the House that, while the Army medical authorities can and do take account of all medical information presented to them, the decision on the medical suitability of candidates for the Army must, ultimately, rest with them.
Mr. Howard then reapplied to AC10 Ashington and was referred by the examining civilian medical practitioner there for specialist neurological assessment. That took place at the Duchess of Kent's military hospital at Catterick on 30 March 1989. The consultant's report confirmed the earlier opinions of the members of the medical boards which recommended Mr. Howard's discharge in 1985, and concluded, in line with the standard system of medical classification, that Mr. Howard was below entry medical standards and that there was, furthermore, no evidence to suggest that he would in the future meet those standards.
Following that, Mr. Howard was again informed that he did not meet the very high standard of medical fitness required for the Army and that AC10 Ashington could not, therefore, proceed further with his application for re-enlistment. This assessment was also later held to be applicable to Army service in the reserves. I can quite understand that Mr. Howard will have been disappointed once again by this decision. Nevertheless, I hope that the House will agree that Mr. Howard has in fact been given every opportunity to prove to the Army medical authorities that he could meet the minimum standards required and that the authorities have fully considered and reconsidered his case.
Finally, I would like to touch on the fears that Mr. Howard has expressed through the hon. Gentleman tonight and previously that his unfitness for the rigours of service life may have some adverse impact on his chances of civilian employment. No failure to satisfy the very high medical standards set by the services for their uniquely stressful and exacting requirements should be taken in itself to imply that an individual is unfit for a wide range of civilian employment. I am naturally pleased that Mr. Howard has obtained reassurance from civilian specialists on his state of health and I hope he will take comfort from this. If he does have any lingering doubts that being found unfit for the Army will affect his prospects of civilian employment, he can also take reassurance on that account from his civilian medical advisers.
With regard to his brief military experience, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the decision to discharge Mr. Howard as medically unfit was not taken lightly nor on the basis of a single incident or examination. Mr. Howard was an in-patient in more than one hospital and therefore subject to medical examination on several occasions between September and November 1985, and the service medical authorities then and later gave due weight to all the evidence before them on reaching their conclusion.
I should like to conclude by wishing Mr. Howard well in civil employment. It is a matter of regret to us all that he has been unable to pursue his chosen career in the services, but, as I hope has become clear from the detailed remarks I have made tonight and from the previous correspondence, the firm view of the competent service medical authorities is that it would not be in the interests either of the Army or of Mr. Howard himself for him to rejoin the forces. That view has been subject to repeated re-examination, and the conclusion of the service medical authorities is that Mr. Howard is not medically fit for service with the Army. But, as I have also made clear, that does not mean that he is not medically fit for a wide range of civil employment, and the views of his general practitioner should, I hope, serve to reassure him and any potential employer.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Ten o'clock.